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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT