Bailey v. State, 100 So. 3d 213

Bailey petitions for certiorari or mandamus to review a pretrial discovery order in his penalty phase proceedings.
Bailey faces trial on first-degree murder, attempted murder, attempted felony murder, burglary with assault, and armed robbery with the State seeking the death penalty.
Bailey identified four mental health experts who may testify in the penalty phase; the State sought discovery of their reports, testing data, notes, and evaluations.
The court ordered production with redactions, directed in camera review, and requested an index of potentially harmful discovery materials.
Bailey sought reconsideration; the court struck the motion and Bailey sought certiorari and mandamus relief; the court denied both.
The court held Rule 3.220 governs reciprocal discovery in penalty phase proceedings, allows in camera review to protect work product and privileges, and denied relief for mandamus.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discovery order complied with essential legal standards for certiorari review.	Bailey argues the order departs from law by broad pretrial disclosure and impairs rights.	State contends the order, with in camera review, preserves rights and follows Rule 3.220.	Certiorari denied; order did not depart from law.
Whether the court properly ordered discovery and in camera review of defense materials.	Bailey contends data disclosure threatens work product and privilege.	State relies on Abdool to justify data disclosure with in camera protection.	Order proper; in camera review preserves privilege/work product.
Whether the discovery plan violated Bailey's Fifth Amendment rights.	Disclosures could reveal statements to experts and be used to prosecute Bailey.	In camera review prevents compelled disclosures from being used against Bailey.	No Fifth Amendment violation; disclosures safeguarded by in camera process.
Whether the court abused its discretion regarding delay-based rationales for discovery.	Bailey claims the court relied on speculative delay implications.	Court has broad discretionary authority; materiality and good cause govern discovery scope.	No abuse of discretion; discovery order within the court's discretion.
Whether mandamus should issue to compel lower-court action.	Bailey seeks mandamus to require merits review or written reasons.	No clear legal right or ministerial duty shown; adequate remedies exist.	Mandamus denied.

Allstate Ins. Co. v. Langston, 655 So.2d 91 (Fla.1995) (certiorari framework for discovery orders; essential requirements of law)
Martin-Johnson, Inc. v. Savage, 509 So.2d 1097 (Fla.1987) (work product/privilege considerations in discovery)
Abdool v. State, 53 So.3d 208 (Fla.2010) (reciprocal discovery and raw data from mental health experts; in camera review)
State v. Clark, 644 So.2d 556 (Fla.2d DCA 1994) ( Rule 3.220 applicability to penalty phase proceedings)
Sexton v. State, 643 So.2d 53 (Fla.2d DCA 1994) (discovery rules apply to penalty phase prior to conviction)
Smith v. State, 873 So.2d 585 (Fla.3d DCA 2004) (in camera review to determine work product vs. discoverable material)
Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (U.S.1992) ( Fifth Amendment protection against compelled disclosures)
Booker v. State, 634 So.2d 301 (Fla.5th DCA 1994) (discovery timing/discretionary scope in Florida courts)
Smith v. State, 873 So.2d 585 (Fla.3d DCA 2004) (reciprocal discovery and privileged material)
Abdool v. State, 53 So.3d 208 (Fla.2010) (reaffirmed rule 3.220 applicability to PPP)