Opinion ID: 1782126
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether Bryan's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is threatened by the civil proceedings.

Text: The second issue is whether Bryan's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is threatened by the civil proceeding. In Ex parte Windom, supra , this Court held that the moving party's Fifth Amendment right was not threatened by a civil proceeding; therefore, the Court denied his petition for a writ of mandamus. In Windom, Windom, the moving party, was not the criminal defendant. It was Windom, however, who made the motion to stay the civil case pending the outcome of the criminal trial against the defendant. The trial court refused to grant Windom's motion for a stay. This Court held that Windom's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not implicated by these proceedings and denied his petition for a writ of mandamus. To sustain a moving party's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, `it need only be evident from the implications of the question, in the setting in which it is asked, that a responsive answer to the question or an explanation of why it cannot be answered might be dangerous because injurious disclosure could result.' Baugh, 530 So.2d at 241 (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, 71 S.Ct. 814, 95 L.Ed. 1118 (1951)). This Court has found a moving party's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination threatened by the discovery process in a civil proceeding. In Ex parte Coastal Training, supra , this Court discussed the differing nature of discovery in civil and criminal proceedings. The scope of civil discovery is broad, requiring almost complete disclosure; criminal discovery, on the other hand, is much more restricted. Allowing civil discovery to proceed while a criminal case is pending may allow the prosecution in the criminal case to use the broad scope of civil discovery to its advantage. Coastal Training. This Court has also found that a moving party's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination is threatened when a court requires the party to participate in a deposition or a trial, allowing the party to remain quiet only for specific questions that may incriminate him or her. In Coastal Training, this Court discussed the dangers of allowing a defendant to remain quiet only for specific questions, including the possibility of a criminal investigator's being planted at the deposition in the civil proceeding, the possibility that the defendant could reveal the weak points of the case to a prosecutor by what he or she refuses to answer, and the opportunity for a prosecutor to conduct a point-by-point review of the case to find a `link in the chain of evidence' that would lead to the defendant's conviction. 583 So.2d at 981 (quoting Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. at 486, 71 S.Ct. 814). Because of these dangers, it may be necessary to stay the civil proceedings in order for the defendant's Fifth Amendment rights to be protected. Bryan argues that the allegations of the criminal case are so interrelated with this civil case that [Bryan's] testimony will be akin to walking through a field of land mineseach question and answer a potential risk for use against him at a criminal proceeding. (Bryan's brief at 11.) Bryan argues that because of the overlap in the claims of abuse before the filing of the divorce complaint and the element of a pattern of threats or abuse the prosecutor must prove to prove the stalking charge, his Fifth Amendment rights are threatened by requiring him to continue with the divorce proceeding. We agree that because of the stalking charge (see Part I of this opinion), the dangers discussed in Coastal Training exist here if Bryan is required to continue with the civil divorce proceeding. The dissent argues that because discovery in the divorce action is completed and Bryan has not had to answer an incriminating question, [3] Bryan is unable to argue that he will have to incriminate himself at the trial in the divorce action. This argument suggests that at the trial of the divorce action nothing will be asked of Bryan that was not asked during the discovery phase of the divorce proceeding. This, however, is unlikely. Thus, even if discovery has been completed and even if Bryan has not yet been asked an incriminating question, because of the overlap in these proceedings, he will likely be asked at trial questions that would cause him to incriminate himself. His Fifth Amendment right is clearly threatened. The dissent also argues that the language previously quoted from Coastal Training, 583 So.2d at 981, is not a valid statement of the law. This Court stated in Coastal Training: `The broad scope of civil discovery may present to both the prosecution, and at times the criminal defendant, an irresistible temptation to use that discovery to one's advantage in a criminal case.' Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.2d 1198, 1203 (Fed.Cir.1987). In Afro-Lecon, the court pointed out some of the dangers presented by this situation: `Such unconstitutional uses may begin with the surreptitious planting of criminal investigators in civil depositions . . . and end with passive abuses, such as when the civil party, who asserts fifth amendment rights, is compelled to refuse to answer questions individually, revealing his weak points to the criminal prosecutor. This point-by-point review of the civil case may lead to a link in the chain of evidence that unconstitutionally contributes to the defendant's conviction. Hoffman v. United States, 341 U.S. 479, 486 [71 S.Ct. 814, 818, 95 L.Ed. 1118] (1951).' It may be unclear to the author of the dissent why this Court in Coastal Training adopted the language from Afro-Lecon, Inc. v. United States, 820 F.2d 1198 (Fed.Cir.1987), a federal Court of Appeals case. 953 So.2d at 391. However, this Court has reaffirmed Coastal Training 's adoption of the federal circuit's approach as the law in Alabama on four other occasions. In Ex parte Ebbers, supra , this Court created an exhaustive list of 13 principles that have emerged from Alabama caselaw concerning the stay of a civil proceeding pending the outcome of a criminal case. One of those principles (no. 11) states: A civil party's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination cannot be adequately protected by requiring him simply to assert his right to remain silent when asked specific questions during a civil deposition; such an approach construes the Fifth Amendment too narrowly. The dangers in such an approach have been identified as including the possibility of a criminal investigator's being `planted' at the deposition, the revealing by the deponent of his weak points by his selection of which questions he refuses to answer, and the opportunity presented to a prosecutor of deriving, by a point-by-point review of the civil case, a `link in the chain of evidence' that would unconstitutionally contribute to the defendant's conviction in the criminal case. 871 So.2d at 788. Likewise, in Ex parte Williams, 775 So.2d 146, 148 (Ala.2000), Ex parte Price, 707 So.2d 1105, 1107 (Ala.1997), and Ex parte Hill, 674 So.2d 530, 534 (Ala.1996), this Court also discussed the dangers of requiring a party to continue with a civil trial while criminal charges were pending against the party. In Williams and Price the Court held that these dangers mandated a stay in the civil proceedings in those cases. If, as the dissent claims, this Court was wrong in its analysis in Coastal Training, then Ebbers, Williams, Price, and Hill must have also been incorrect statement[s] of the law. 953 So.2d at 391. Ironically, the dissent quotes Afro-Lecon, the case decided by the federal Court of Appeals, with which the dissent so strongly disagrees, in support of a proposition in its opinion. 953 So.2d at 391. Furthermore, some of the language this Court quoted in Coastal Training from Afro-Lecon was in turn taken from Hoffman v. United States , a United States Supreme Court case. In Hoffman, the United States Supreme Court stated: The privilege afforded not only extends to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.  341 U.S. at 486, 71 S.Ct. 814 (emphasis added). The dissent also discusses the compelled to refuse to answer language from Afro-Lecon and simply discounts it as being contradictory in terms. 953 So.2d at 391. However, this phrase, when read in the context of the language in Afro-Lecon, is not as confusing as the dissent makes it out to be. The phrase simply refers to a party's being forced to participate in a civil proceeding and being allowed to plead the Fifth Amendment in response to certain questions; therefore, the party is being compelled to refuse to answer. This is exactly the situation in which Bryan would be placed were the stay to be denied. This is precisely the situation in which all the dangers discussed previously may arise. In addition, the dissent cites Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 316, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976), for the proposition that the Fifth Amendment does not protect the witness from being asked the questions in the first place, or (in a civil action) from the consequences of a refusal to answer. 953 So.2d at 391. However, Baxter is concerned with the type of inferences that can be drawn from a party's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, not whether the party should be awarded a stay in a parallel civil proceeding. Furthermore, one of the statements the dissent quotes from Baxter is `the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.' 953 So.2d at 391. Neither this quotation, nor the entire United States Supreme Court opinion in Baxter stand for the proposition that the dissent cites it forthat the Fifth Amendment does not protect the witness from being asked the questions in the first place. 953 So.2d at 391. Further, the quotation in the dissent from Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 84, 90 S.Ct. 1893, 26 L.Ed.2d 446 (1970), is also inapposite. In Williams, the defendant argued that he was being forced to violate his Fifth Amendment protection by being required to provide the name and address of the person he claimed was his alibi, thus allowing the State to depose the alibi witness. The Court in Williams stated: The defendant in a criminal trial is frequently forced to testify himself and to call other witnesses in an effort to reduce the risk of conviction. When he presents his witnesses, he must reveal their identity and submit them to cross-examination which in itself may prove incriminating or which may furnish the State with leads to incriminating rebuttal evidence. That the Defendant faces such a dilemma demanding a choice between complete silence and presenting a defense has never been thought an invasion of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination.  399 U.S. at 83-84, 90 S.Ct. 1893 (portion quoted in the dissent emphasized). Thus, other than dealing with the broad concept of the privilege against self-incrimination, this quotation has no bearing on the issue involved in this case. If this Court were to deny Bryan's petition and require the civil divorce proceedings to continue, allowing Bryan to invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege and refuse to answer certain questions that he deems are incriminating, Bryan will be subjected to all of the dangers of self-incrimination that are discussed in the cases mentioned earlier. Therefore, it is the opinion of this Court that Bryan's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in the criminal case against him is threatened by the civil action against him.