Defense attorneys hope to delay civil case against Taylor

By Neal A. Johnson, UD Editor
Posted 11/4/21

 Defense attorneys from the Carlson Law Firm of Union on Friday asked Judge David L. Hoven to stay civil proceedings, discovery and requested a protective order for their client, Warren M. …

This item is available in full to subscribers.

Please log in to continue

E-mail
Password
Log in

Defense attorneys hope to delay civil case against Taylor

Posted

 Defense attorneys from the Carlson Law Firm of Union on Friday asked Judge David L. Hoven to stay civil proceedings, discovery and requested a protective order for their client, Warren M. Taylor, 62, of Chamois, who is being sued for the wrongful death of Leonard and Pauline Gerloff by Allen Starke, Yvonne Reed, and Patricia Gerloff. The Gerloff family filed motions seeking punitive damages, a motion for discovery, a motion for a writ of attachment, and filed suggestions in support to counter the motion to stay the proceedings filed by Taylor’s attorney, thereby requesting that the civil trial move forward. Defense Attorney Sarah Tupper told Judge Hoven that to proceed with this civil case would deny Taylor constitutional rights because the facts of the criminal case (outlined in an accompanying story) are identical to those presented in the civil case. Tupper noted that Taylor’s Fifth Amendment rights would disappear if he is forced to speak in the civil trial and observes his right to remain silent. Tupper said that may, to a jury, amount to a confession, which she noted would lead to a judgment for the plaintiff. Tupper believes aggressive or undue discovery is the result of the plaintiffs wanting to get their money faster. Judge Hoven interrupted to say that it’s human nature to want such a result. “Why did OJ Simpson’s civil trial happen after the criminal trial? He asked for a stay,” Tupper noted. “The burden of proof is different in each trial.” Tupper also alluded to Bill Cosby, who was promised immunity during a civil trial but his words were later used against him in the criminal trial, resulting in a guilty verdict. “This is about not forcing a person to choose,” said Tupper. She added that Taylor could claim self-defense but said her hands would be tied if a civil trial is happening at the same time. “I think it would be an abuse of discretion to allow the civil trial to proceed at this time,” said Tupper. “Even with the threat of remarkable sanctions?” Judge Hoven asked with regard to a protective order. Tupper replied that she is worried about the jury pool if the civil case proceeds. “I don’t know how you do that with so much attention in this case,” she added. “People will know, or think they know, one way or the other, what (happened).” Attorney John Shikles said his clients would be prejudiced with a stay because it would remove subpoena power, and make it difficult to gather evidence and testimony before memories fade or are tainted. “His residence was sold to hinder creditors,” Shikles said. “Or to pay his attorney,” Judge Hoven interjected. Shikles added that Leonard Gerloff’s mother is 83 and may not be around to see the trial in this case. “I don’t want to be callous but having elderly surviving family members is not reason enough to overcome the burden of preserving fundamental rights,” said Tupper. “The burden is on Warren Taylor,” Shikles said. “The Fifth Amendment is not sufficient to stay the case. There are no facts or circumstances in which he’ll suffer worse than the average defendant.” If Taylor has a valid case for self-defense, Shikles noted, it can be preserved for the criminal case. He added that Taylor waived his Fifth Amendment rights by speaking with law enforcement and offering an alibi. “Unless that has changed, it doesn’t seem the Fifth Amendment is going to prejudice the case,” Shikles said. Judge Hoven asked if an order to freeze Taylor’s assets would be appropriate. “Yes, plus the appointment of an overseer,” said Shikles. “A third party would be good.” Shikles told the court that a stay is not appropriate and said that Osage County Prosecuting Attorney Amanda Grellner has no objection to the civil case proceeding. Tupper told Judge Hoven that if he was inclined to deny the defense’s motions, she would like 10 days to take the case to the appellate court. Shikles countered that this motion is not about Taylor’s right to remain silent, adding he’s happy to work with the court and defense attorneys on a protective order. Judge Hoven took the arguments under advisement and will schedule a conference call with attorneys in a few weeks.