Invoking the Rule in Administrative Proceedings: Florida Industrial Power Users Group v. Art Graham

The Florida Evidence Code has a rule called witness sequestration, which allows a party to ask the court to keep a witness out of the courtroom so they don’t hear other testimonies. This is to make sure the witness’s testimony is fair and not influenced by what others have said. This rule comes from a story in the Bible where a woman was accused unfairly, but a wise man separated the accusers and found out they were lying. This story shows why it’s important to keep witnesses separate from each other to prevent lying and find out the truth. Florida has a rule that allows witnesses to be kept away from each other during a trial so they can’t hear each other’s testimony. But in administrative proceedings, the rule is more relaxed. In a case involving Florida Power and Light, the Florida Industrial Power Users Group asked for witness sequestration but was denied. They argued that the rule should apply to administrative proceedings, but the court disagreed. The FIPUG argued that a certain law only applies to admitting evidence, not all aspects of the evidence code. The evidence code covers many things like who has to prove something and when witnesses need to be kept separate. These are different legal questions than whether a piece of evidence can be used. The Florida Supreme Court ruled that the rules of evidence don’t apply strictly to administrative proceedings. They also ruled that the commission was allowed to deny a request to sequester witnesses during a hearing. The court said that the general rules of evidence didn’t apply to administrative proceedings before 1979, so the evidence code doesn’t strictly apply either. The court said that the rules for evidence don’t always apply in administrative hearings, and the commission can decide what evidence to use. In this case, the commission used pre-filed written testimony, so they didn’t need to keep the witnesses apart. This means that administrative agencies have flexibility in deciding what evidence to use. But it could make things uncertain for people in lawsuits, as they figure out what the agencies can do to check if witnesses are telling the truth. The case of Florida Industrial Power Users Group (FIPUG) v. Florida Public Service Commission was about a dispute over rates for electricity. FIPUG argued that the Commission made a mistake in approving the rate increase requested by Florida Power & Light Co. The Court ultimately decided in favor of FIPUG, saying the Commission didn’t follow the correct procedures. The case involved a lot of legal arguments and references to statutes and previous cases. When people testify in court, their testimony can be affected by what they hear from other witnesses. That’s why there is a rule called witness sequestration, which allows a party to ask the court to keep a witness out of the courtroom until it’s their turn to testify. This rule helps make sure that each witness’s testimony is their own and hasn’t been influenced by what others have said. The idea of keeping witnesses separate during a trial goes back a long time and is even mentioned in the Bible. In the story of Susanna, two men falsely accused her of meeting another man in her husband’s garden. But a wise man named Daniel separated the men and questioned them separately, which revealed that they were lying. This story has been used by courts to show the importance of keeping witnesses separate to prevent lying and uncover the truth. In Florida, witness sequestration has been a common law practice for a long time. However, it’s not always enforced, and the courts have the final say. The rule doesn’t apply in administrative proceedings, where formalities are more relaxed. In a case involving Florida Power and Light, a group called FIPUG wanted witnesses to be sequestered, but the Public Service Commission denied the request. FIPUG appealed, arguing that the evidence code should apply to administrative proceedings. FIPUG argued that a specific law only applies to admitting evidence, not all aspects of the evidence code. The evidence code covers more than just admitting evidence, like who has to prove things and special privileges. Asking to keep witnesses separate from each other isn’t the same as deciding if evidence should be allowed in court. FIPUG argued that the Evidence Code should apply to administrative proceedings, but the commission disagreed. The Florida Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of the commission, stating that administrative agencies have the discretion to decide whether to apply the Florida Evidence Code. As a result, the court upheld the commission’s decision to deny sequestration of witnesses in a specific case. The court said that in administrative proceedings, the rules for evidence can be changed if the commission decides to do so. This happened in the FPL case. The court also said that in commission proceedings, written testimony is given ahead of time, so there’s no need to keep witnesses separate. This gives administrative agencies a lot of flexibility in deciding which evidence to use. This could make things unpredictable for parties involved in the future. This text is about a legal case involving the Florida Public Service Commission and the Florida Industrial Power Users Group. It includes details about the arguments presented by both sides and the court’s decision. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the Florida Public Service Commission. In a legal case about power purchase obligations, pre-filed testimony will be considered as if the witness had affirmed it in court. Virginia and Samantha, who are lawyers with a law firm, wrote a column on behalf of the Administrative Law Section. The column is about improving the justice system and following the rules of The Florida Bar.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/invoking-the-rule-in-administrative-proceedings-florida-industrial-power-users-group-v-art-graham/