Former New Orleans Police Department detective Stanley Burkhardt all but shut down during a recent civil deposition, invoking his Fifth Amendment right more than 700 times rather than answer questions about alleged abuse and long-unsolved killings. The recorded testimony, held inside the Orleans Parish jail, stretched to roughly four hours as lawyers tried to press him on deaths dating back to the 1970s and 1980s.
During the session, plaintiff attorney Kristi Schubert questioned Burkhardt while a court reporter recorded the exchange on video, and he refused to answer more than 700 questions, according to WWL-TV. That outlet reports the deposition lasted about four hours and took place inside the New Orleans jail. WWL-TV also notes that in a February 2020 court hearing Burkhardt did give one clear answer, saying “no” when asked if he had murdered Eddie Wells.
Burkhardt, a convicted child molester who once headed the NOPD sex-crimes unit, was first sent to prison in 1987 after a conviction for mailing child-abuse imagery, as reported by The Guardian. In 2011, a federal judge found that he met the criteria for involuntary commitment as “sexually dangerous,” though he later underwent treatment and was released under supervision. He was taken back into custody on July 15, 2025, on state parole-violation allegations and now faces local charges related to registration requirements and his online activity.
Cold cases and fresh scrutiny
Plaintiffs’ attorneys and investigators say Burkhardt’s stonewalling has put new attention on several cold cases, including the 1982 drowning of Eddie Wells and the 1978 deaths of Dennis Turcotte, Raymond Richardson and Daniel Dewey, according to WWL-TV. Depositions in the lawsuit include testimony from former investigator Frank Weicks, who said his agency had at one point viewed Burkhardt as a possible suspect. The records were produced in litigation brought by survivor Richard Windmann, who says Burkhardt abused him when he was a youth.
Legal implications of invoking the Fifth
The Fifth Amendment protects people from being forced to incriminate themselves, but how that plays out depends heavily on the setting. Legal resources explain that in civil cases, unlike criminal trials, judges in some instances may let jurors draw negative inferences from a witness’s refusal to answer, making the decision to invoke the Fifth as much a tactical move as a constitutional safeguard, according to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Whether any such inference will be allowed in this lawsuit will ultimately be up to the judge if the case reaches a jury…