response to Bernal’s requests that she admit each of the elements of guilt in the criminal charges brought against her and each of the elements of liability in his wrongful death suit — can be sustained only by a reading of Katin and Speer that is unreasonable in the context of those cases themselves, is contrary to established federal and Texas Supreme Court law, and has the absurd consequence of rendering the federal and state constitutional privilege against self-incrimination unavailable as a matter of law in response to requests for admission in a civil suit brought in Texas state court. Thus, I would hold that the trial court’s blanket order denying the privilege is arbitrary and unreasonable and, therefore, a clear abuse of the court’s discretion. See Walker, 827 S.W.2d at 889 (<HOLDING>). Conclusion I would grant the petition for
holding that a court abuses its discretion by making clear errors of judgment holding that sentencing court abuses its discretion by committing a clear error of judgment recognizing that the trial court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law in reaching a discretionary decision holding that trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to clear and prejudicial error of law holding a court abuses its discretion when it commits an error of law