Loading…
9 verbatim mandatory provisions from AO 2025-009.
Third Judicial Circuit (Columbia, Dixie, Hamilton, Lafayette, Madison, Suwannee, Taylor). Check the order's own effective and rescission dates before relying on it. Procedural information only; not legal advice.
Verbatim from the order's own text layer, harvested 2026-07-25; whitespace normalised only. No OCR. Only sentences carrying mandatory language are reproduced — the full order is in custody and is the controlling text. • Establishing Guidelines Pursuant to F.S. 914.16 for Reasonable Limitations on the Number of Interviews of Victims Under 16 Years of Age and of Intellectually Disabled Victims I WHEREAS, efforts should be made to limit the number of interviews in which a victim of child abuse or sexual abuse must participate for law enforcement or discovery purposes in order to protect the victim from the psychological damage of repeated interrogation; • (2025) requires the chief judge of a judicial circuit to order reasonable limits on the number of interviews which a victim of certain offenses who is under 16 years of age or who has an intellectual disability as defined ins. 393.063 must submit to for law enforcement or discovery purposes; and, WHEREAS, these efforts need to be balanced with rights of the public and the person charged with the violation oflaw; • NOW, THEREFORE, pursuant to the authority vested in me as Chief Judge of the Third Judicial Circuit of Florida and F.S. 914.16, it is hereby ORDERED that such efforts shall be made on behalf of the victim as referenced above and the guidelines shall be followed as set forth below: 1. • All agencies involved in the investigation of violations ofF.S.794.011, 800.02, 800.03, 800.04, 825.102, 827.03, 827.04, and 847.0135 (5) shall coordinate their investigations to facilitate this provision. • All efforts shall be made to reduce the number of agency representatives participating in the interviewing of the child or the individual with an intellectual disability, as applicable. 2. • Interviews shall be conducted in a setting and manner designed to minimize the traumatic effect of the interview on the victim. 6. • Additional interviews shall be allowed only by order of the trial judge upon motion for good cause shown, unless there is no objection to said interview by the victim's custodial parent, legal guardian, guardian ad litem or State Attorney. • Additional interviews shall be limited in scope as much as possible to assure minimal impact on the victim. "INTERVIEW" for the purposes of this order, means any procedure in which the victim is required to provide a detailed account or demonstration of the nature and circumstances of the above but does not include: the history obtained for the purposes of medical or psychological diagnosis or treatment; any initial contact with the victim by law enforcement, or the Florida Department of Children and Family Services, to assess the validity of a complaint or need to take protective measures on behalf of the victim. • Nothing contained in this order shall prevent the trial court from limiting the discovery deposition pursuant to the applicable provisions of Rule 1.280(c) of the Florida Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 3.220(h), of the Florida Rules of Criminal Procedure, or Rule 8.060 of the Florida Rules of Juvenile Procedure.
Establishing Guidelines Pursuant to F.S. 914.16 for Reasonable Limitations on the Number of Interviews of Victims Under 16 Years of Age and of Intellectually Disabled Victims I WHEREAS, efforts should be made to limit the number of interviews in which a victim of child abuse or sexual abuse must participate for law enforcement or discovery purposes in order to protect the victim from the psychological damage of repeated interrogation;
Reviewer note: Document sha256: c6d4aa7c1570f7e5a26fb4c2cdc53c72c085cd0a6cdfbfb0e7aafb6e430f76d4 (273132 bytes).
25 verbatim mandatory provisions from AO 2022-004.
10 verbatim mandatory provisions from AO 2014-025.
The 17th Circuit's circuit-wide AI disclosure/certification mandate (Jan 2026, twice amended) was VACATED in its entirety effective June 15, 2026 by Chief Judge Phillips's AO 2026-19-Gen, expressly citing the statewide framework (AOSC26-12; Rule 2.515(d)(2), SC2026-0673). Several division procedure pages still cite the vacated order.