Author Topic: State's Motion to Compel Shellie Zimmerman to Testify at Deposition  (Read 3477 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
The state filed a motion to compel Shellie Zimmerman to testify at a deposition. Use immunity would apply.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
The state filed a motion to compel Shellie Zimmerman to testify at a deposition. Use immunity would apply.

I wonder why no assertion of spousal privilege, or if that will be raised if the state succeeds at overcoming the 5th amendment privilege.

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0

Spousal privilege in Florida is limited to confidential communications.

Fla. Stat. § 90.504

Offline TalkLeft

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1125
  • Rate Post +0/-0
    • TalkLeft: The Politics of Crime
I posted my thoughts on this (and the anonymous jury) here

Offline MJW

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1304
  • Rate Post +0/-0
When considering the 5th Amendment implications, it's important to be aware of Section 914.04, which grants use immunity and derivative use immunity to a witness subpoenaed by the state to testify at a deposition when answering questions from the prosecutor (see, for example, State v. Mitrani, 19 So. 3d 1065 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009)):

Quote
914.04 Witnesses; person not excused from testifying or producing evidence in certain prosecutions on ground testimony might incriminate him or her; use of testimony given or evidence produced.—No person who has been duly served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum shall be excused from attending and testifying or producing any book, paper, or other document before any court having felony trial jurisdiction, grand jury, or state attorney upon investigation, proceeding, or trial for a violation of any of the criminal statutes of this state upon the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of the person may tend to convict him or her of a crime or to subject him or her to a penalty or forfeiture, but no testimony so given or evidence so produced shall be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding. Such testimony or evidence, however, may be received against the person upon any criminal investigation or proceeding for perjury committed while giving such testimony or producing such evidence or for any perjury subsequently committed.

The immunity does not apply to a witness subpoenaed for a defense deposition.

Offline cboldt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Rate Post +0/-0
I wonder why no assertion of spousal privilege, or if that will be raised if the state succeeds at overcoming the 5th amendment privilege.

Just for the record, I figured this out about half an hour after posting the question.  Spousal immunity goes to questions about George's conduct or statements, and 5th amendment is personal to oneself.  I realize some questions are hard to categorize one way or the other, and that some questions about personal (illegal) conduct also implicate a spouse.  Which privilege is associated will vary, question by question.

Offline unitron

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1060
  • Rate Post +0/-0
So did anybody try to make a video recording of Shellie's deposition?

 ;D

Offline nomatter_nevermind

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5449
  • Rate Post +0/-0
I'm thinking they might do what the defense suggested for Crump. That is, have the judge present for the deposition, to rule on privilege issues point by point.

 

Site Meter
click
tracking