ILNews

'Pleading the Fifth' not the same as admitting to criminal act

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A reference made during a trial to “pleading the Fifth” is not an admission of a crime and, therefore, by itself is not grounds for a mistrial, the Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled.

In Roger Jay Piatek, M.D. and The Piatek Institute v. Shairon Beale, 49A04-1209-CT-448, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s denial of Roger Jay Piatek’s motion for a mistrial. It found the trial court’s admonition was sufficient to cure any prejudice from Shairon Beale’s reference to Piatek pleading the Fifth Amendment.

Beale filed a medical malpractice complaint against Piatek after she developed toxic epidermal necrolysis that was believed to have been caused by the medications Piatek prescribed for weight loss.

Piatek’s motion for a mistrial came after an exchange between Piatek and Beale’s counsel in the courtroom. Beale’s counsel asked Piatek a series of questions regarding I.C. 35-48-3-11 which provides for the use of Schedule III or Schedule IV controlled substances for the purposes of weight reduction or to control obesity.

Piatek’s counsel objected, saying the plaintiff’s counsel should not be asking him questions of law. At that point, Beale’s counsel, contending she was not asking Piatek to practice law, turned her attention to the Request for Admission and asked Piatek if he remembered pleading the Fifth.

As part of a pre-trial Request for Admission, Piatek was asked to admit he violated I.C. 35-48-3-11 when he prescribed Phentermine to Beale. The doctor responded “Defendants object to this Request on Fifth Amendment grounds.”

Piatek’s counsel requested a mistrial.

After hearing arguments of counsel and over the objection of Piatek’s counsel, the trial court admonished the jury that Piatek “has never pleaded the Fifth in this case and is not pleading the Fifth in this case. So disregard the question and the inference that could be made from that question.”

The COA declined to hold that a generic reference to “pleading the Fifth” subjected Piatek to greater prejudice.

The question from Beale’s counsel about whether Piatek remembered pleading the Fifth did not assert facts not in evidence. Nor did the counsel’s statement indicate the doctor had engaged in criminal activity.

“We acknowledge a reference to ‘pleading the Fifth’ suggests some underlying criminal activity and may be prejudicial,” Judge Melissa May wrote for the court. “But ‘pleading the Fifth”’ is not itself a criminal act; it is an assertion of a constitutional protection. … The trial court’s admonition to Beale’s jury was adequate.”

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT