Skip to main content
Cloudy icon
77º

Overruled: Judge can’t order woman to provide list of people she’s dated

Florida Keys circuit judge overrules lower court’s ruling in domestic violence case

An alleged domestic violence victim won't have to provide a 10-year list of people she's dated after a Florida Keys judge overruled a lower court's decision. (Credit: Pixabay)

KEY WEST, Fla. – A Florida Keys judge has overruled a lower court's order that an alleged victim of domestic violence release to her alleged abuser's defense team her 10-year dating history and contact information of those with whom she was previously romantically involved.

Monroe County Circuit Court Judge Timothy Koening ruled Friday that a county court judge's order would cause "irreparable harm" to the victim and to the process as a whole, referencing the victim's right to privacy and the public's confidence in the judicial process.

Recommended Videos



Koening granted a petition from prosecutors to quash the May 28 order by Judge Peary Fowler after reviewing the appeal and hearing arguments from Assistant State Attorney Cristy Spottswood and defense attorney Hal Schumacher, who represents Bradley McBride.

"Judge Koening got it exactly right today," Spottswood said after Friday's hearing.

McBride was arrested in March 2018, accused of battery on an ex-girlfriend in Key West.

During a December 2018 deposition, Schuhmacher asked the ex-girlfriend whether she had been in an abusive relationship. She said an ex-boyfriend verbally abused her 10 years earlier.

When Schuhmacher asked her who she had dated between the incidents, Assistant State Attorney Marisa Faraldo Tedesco told the woman not to answer. But Schuhmacher filed a motion for sanctions and to show cause as to why the woman couldn't answer the question.

Fowler, who wondered what if the victim wasn't telling the truth, issued an order stating that she "shall provide a list of individuals she dated during the past 10 years and ways to contact those individuals."

Spottswood argued that the question was not reasonably calculated to lead to discovery of admissible evidence. Rather, she argued, it was merely to harass and embarrass the victim.


Recommended Videos