In the Matter of Attorney F, 2012CO57 (September 10, 2012)

A momentary lapse of reason is not just a Pink Floyd album. In this case, during trial, a prosecutor allowed a witness to testify falsely that she did not have a meeting with the prosecutor during a break in her testimony. Later, when asked by defense counsel, the prosecutor did not reveal the meeting with the witness. Later, realizing the gravity of the situation, the prosecutor notified the court, which reported her to the disciplinary board. The board found that the prosecutor made a knowing misrepresentation in violation of C.R.P.C. 8.4. Although reluctant, the board felt compelled to impose a public sanction. The Court reversed, though not disagreeing with the discipline. Rather, the Court emphasized that the board has full discretion in all situations to impose the sanctions it believes are appropriate. The Court remanded to allow the board to exercise its full discretion.

http://www.courts.state.co.us/userfiles/file/Court_Probation/Supreme_Court/Opinions/2011/11SA343.pdf

http://www.cobar.org/opinions/opinion.cfm?opinionid=8654&courtid=2

Advertisements

1 Comment

Filed under Attorney Regulation

One response to “In the Matter of Attorney F, 2012CO57 (September 10, 2012)

  1. Here is an interesting fact: attorney regulation case letters are alphabetical. So the “F” is unrelated to the attorney’s name.

    Like

Brief this Case

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s