HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013388.jpg

IV. EDWARDS IS ENTITLED TO ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM EPSTEIN’S INVOCATION OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT AND THEREFORE TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON EPSTEIN’S CLAIM.

Edwards is entitled to summary judgment on the claim against him for a second and entirely independent reason: Epstein’s repeated invocations of the Fifth Amendment raise adverse inferences against him that leave no possibility that a reasonable factfinder could reach a verdict in his favor. In ruling on a summary judgment motion, the court must fulfill a “gatekeeping function” and should ask whether “a reasonable trier of fact could possibly” reach a verdict in favor of the plaintiff. Willingham v. City of Orlando, 929 So.2d 43, 48 (Fla. 5th Dist. Ct. App. 2006) (emphasis added). Given all of the inferences that are to be drawn against Epstein, no reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Epstein was somehow the victim of improper civil lawsuits filed against him. Instead, a reasonable finder of fact could only find that Epstein was a serial molester of children who was being held accountable through legitimate suits brought by Edwards and others on behalf of the minor girls that Epstein victimized.

“[I]t is well-settled that the Fifth Amendment does not forbid adverse inferences against parties to civil actions when they refuse to testify in response to probative evidence offered against them.” Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 318 (1976); accord Vasquez v. State, 777 So.2d 1200, 1203 (Fla. App. 2001). The reason for this rule “is both logical and utilitarian. A party may not trample upon the rights of others and then escape the consequences by invoking a constitutional privilege – at least not in a civil setting.” Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d 841, 842 (Fla. 4th Dist. Ct. App. 1993). And, in the proper circumstances, “ ‘Silence is often evidence of the most persuasive character.’ ” Fraser v. Security and Inv. Corp., 615 So.2d

19

HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_013388