MONTGOMERY, Ala. (Legal Newsline) - The owners of an Alabama apartment complex lost their plea to delay a lawsuit over a rape on their premises until after the alleged perpetrator is tried. The Alabama Supreme Court, in a decision that drew a sharp dissent, ruled that a trial court erred by issuing a stay on discovery in the civil case until the criminal case is resolved.
A plaintiff identified only as Jane Doe sued the Campus Evolution Villages after she said she was raped in front of her children in a common area of the apartment complex. The suspect, Tereza Demone Jones, was arrested and is being prosecuted for first-degree rape.
The owners of the complex moved to stay discovery pending the outcome of the criminal case, saying they needed evidence that couldn’t be obtained while Jones was facing criminal charges. If they attempted to question Jones in a deposition, for example, he would likely assert his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. After the apartment complex filed the motion to stay discovery, Jones said he would do just that.
The trial judge granted the motion and Doe filed a writ of mandamus with the Alabama Supreme Court to reverse the ruling.
The state’s high court agreed with her in a July 9 decision by Justice Alisa Kelli Wise. While mandamus is an extraordinary form of relief, the court ruled, it should be granted here because corporate defendants can’t assert the Fifth Amendment, either for themselves or on behalf of someone else. Even though Jones has since said he will remain silent, no evidence was presented to the trial court showing Jones intended to take the Fifth, the majority ruled.
Justice Jay Mitchell dissented, saying the majority got precedent wrong. Trial judges have broad discretion to manage their cases as they see fit, the justice said, including issuing orders to stay discovery. The majority cited a prior decision to justify overruling the stay of discovery but that case ultimately involved a situation in which the defendant facing criminal charges had waived his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, the dissenting justice wrote.
While it is true corporate defendants can’t claim the Fifth, Justice Mitchell said, there were good reasons to halt discovery anyway because the criminal trial interfered with the apartment owners’ right to assemble a defense.
“They contend that, without Jones's testimony, it will be difficult to mount a defense against the petitioner's claims,” the justice wrote. “And it's easy to see why it would be difficult -- Jones, the alleged perpetrator, is the central actor in the events that gave rise to the petitioner's claims of negligence and wantonness against the defendants.”