Page 109 - REDEMPTION_Flipbook_Final 2025

- Geraldine Hughes -

dants from the difficult choice between defending the civil or
criminal case."
In Pacer, Inc. v. Superior Court, the defendants refused to
answer questions on their deposition based on the fact of pos-
sible criminal prosecution. Because of their refusal to answer
the deposition questions, the Superior Court granted an order
prohibiting defendants from testifying at trial. The Court of
Appeals reversed said order and reasoned that the prosecu-
tion should not be able to obtain, through civil proceedings,
information to which it was not entitled under the criminal
discovery rules. Here, although the defendants were not crimi-
nal defendants, they were threatened with criminal prosecu-
tion, just like in this case. Pacers Inc. v. Superior Court further
stated that to allow prosecutors to monitor the civil proceed-
ings to obtain incriminating testimony from defendants
through the civil proceedings, "would undermine the Fifth
Amendment privilege and violate concepts of fundamental
fairness."

The Fifth Amendment states that:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or other-
wise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment
of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval
forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War
or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same
offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be
compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against him-
self, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public
use, without just compensation.
The Federal case held that, "when both criminal and civil
proceedings arise out of the same or related transactions, the
defendant is entitled to a Stay of Discovery and trial in the
civil action until the criminal matter has been fully resolved."
Cases cited: Campbell v. Eastland, 307 F.2d 478, cert. denied,
371 U.S. 955, 83 S.Ct. 502, 9 L.Ed. 2d 502 (5th Cir. 1962); Perez
v. McQuire 36 F.R.D. 272 (S.D.N.Y. 1964); Paul Harringan &

108