 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hopp & Flesch11/21/2005
, that Flesch's conduct did not fall below the requisite standard of care that he owed to Back-street and reverse the decision of the court of appeals. We return this case to that court with directions to remand it to the trial court for entry of judgment in favor of Flesch and against Back-street.
II. Facts and Proceedings Below
Back-street, plaintiff below, was employed by the Arapahoe Country Sheriff's Department as a nurse in the county's detention center. During the course of her employment, Back-street made an error in administering medication to an inmate. The inmate sued Arapahoe County, Back-street, and others for medical malpractice. In the ensuing investigation, the inmate's medical record was discovered to have been altered. During an interview by a criminal investigator from the sheriff's office, Back-street, who was not then represented by counsel, stated that she might have altered the record. Back-street was suspended with pay pending the outcome of the investigation.
Approximately six months later, the state filed felony criminal charges against Back-street for forgery, tampering with evidence, and official misconduct. The sheriff's office changed her status to suspension without pay. Back-street then hired the law firm of Hopp & Flesch, L.L.C. and attorney Kevin Flesch, defendants below, to defend her in the criminal case. Flesch also represented her in the ongoing sheriff's office internal investigation. A month later, a county official asked Back-street to participate in an internal affairs interview as part of that investigation. However, when the sheriff's office informed Flesch that he could not be present during internal affairs interviews, he advised Back-street not to participate.
The sheriff's office attempted several more times to schedule an internal affairs interview with Back-street. In the course of doing so, the sheriff's office provided Back-street and Flesch with a written advisement informing Back-street that none of her statements could be used against her in a subsequent criminal proceeding. The advisement further stated that if she did not participate in the internal investigation, Back-street could be disciplined or terminated. The advisement provided, in pertinent part:
You are entitled to all rights and privileges guaranteed by the laws and the Constitution of this State and the Constitution of the United States, including the right not to be compelled to incriminate yourself in a criminal matter, however, this is not a criminal investigation. I further wish to advise you that if you refuse to testify or to answer questions relating to the performance of your official duties or fitness for duty, you will be subject to administrative charges which could result in your dismissal from the Sheriff's Office. If you do answer, neither your statements nor any information or evidence which is gained by reason of such statements can be used against you in any subsequent criminal proceeding.
(Emphasis added.) The advisement was accompanied by a letter informing Back-street that any "information obtained during the internal affairs interview cannot be used in the criminal investigation," citing Garrity v. New Jersey, 385 U.S. 493 (1967), and Sapp, 934 P.2d 1367, and including a copy of Garrity.
Despite the assertions contained in the sheriff's advisement, Flesch advised Back-street not to participate in any internal affairs interviews. Flesch reasoned that, under applicable case law, Back-street's statements would not be deemed to be compelled by the state and would therefore not be protected under her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Hence, the statements could then be us
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Colorado Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|