325 F. Supp. 3d 1008
D. Ariz.2018Background
- James L. Styers was convicted in 1990 of murder, conspiracy, kidnapping, and child abuse and sentenced to death; convictions and many post-conviction rulings have been litigated through state courts and multiple rounds of federal habeas.
- The Ninth Circuit granted limited relief in 2008 on sentencing (Clemons/resentencing issue); the Arizona Supreme Court conducted an independent review and reinstated the death sentence; subsequent federal review denied relief.
- Styers pursued additional federal habeas actions; the district court and Ninth Circuit ultimately rejected or deemed moot the remaining sentencing claims; Supreme Court denied certiorari on multiple occasions.
- Styers (through counsel) refused to answer nearly all deposition questions in current civil litigation, asserting the Fifth Amendment privilege to every question except basic biographical dates.
- Plaintiff and Defendants moved to compel deposition testimony; the court analyzed whether Styers may invoke the Fifth Amendment given the procedural posture of his convictions and post-conviction challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Styers may invoke the Fifth Amendment at a civil deposition concerning crimes underlying his convictions | Styers contends he retains the privilege until all avenues (including future/successive collateral petitions and possible relief) are exhausted | Defendants argue the privilege lapses where there is no substantial and real risk of future incrimination because Styers’ convictions/sentences are effectively final | Court held Styers may not invoke the Fifth Amendment for questions about the crimes for which he was convicted because there is no substantial and real likelihood of adverse consequences |
| Scope of privilege for non-conviction-related personal questions (e.g., children, arrests) | Styers claims broad blanket privilege to avoid any potential incrimination | Defendants say many questions are non-incriminating and privilege is inapplicable absent a real danger of incrimination | Court held Styers cannot blanket-invoke the privilege for unrelated personal questions; many are non-incriminating |
| Proper definition of “final” for Fifth Amendment purposes after conviction | Styers argues finality should be deferred until execution or absolute end of consequences | Defendants propose a functional test: privilege ends when no "substantial and real" hazards remain | Court adopted the "substantial and real" hazards test and rejected Styers’ absolute rule |
| Remedy/next steps if Styers refuses to answer after order | Styers implies continued invocation and potential appellate avenues | Defendants seek immediate deposition and use of sanctions if necessary | Court ordered deposition to proceed and noted interlocutory order is likely not immediately appealable; contempt/citation would be the avenue for appellate review |
Key Cases Cited
- Mitchell v. United States, 526 U.S. 314 (Fifth Amendment may persist through sentencing unless conviction and sentence are final such that further testimony cannot incriminate)
- Reina v. United States, 364 U.S. 507 (final conviction generally eliminates Fifth Amendment privilege as to the convicted transactions)
- Lambright v. Ryan, 698 F.3d 808 (9th Cir.) (federal habeas petitioners may in some circumstances retain a limited Fifth Amendment privilege and courts may draw negative inferences)
- Clay v. United States, 537 U.S. 522 (finality in criminal cases defined for many contexts as conclusion of direct review or expiration of certiorari period)
- Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39 (testulating that privilege depends on whether there are "substantial and real" hazards of incrimination)
- Ohio v. Reiner, 532 U.S. 17 (threat of prosecution must be substantial and real, not imaginary or speculative)
- Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nevada, Humboldt Cty., 542 U.S. 177 (Fifth Amendment protects only testimonial, incriminating, compelled communications)
- Styers v. Schriro, 547 F.3d 1026 (9th Cir.) (Ninth Circuit decision granting limited relief as to sentence)
- Styers v. Ryan, 811 F.3d 292 (9th Cir.) (Ninth Circuit upholding Arizona Supreme Court’s independent sentencing review)