Spokane7
55°
May 6, 2010 in City
Spokane officer won’t have city attorneys in Zehm case
Conflicts had been alleged over representation
Treppiedi
(Full-size photo)
Attorneys employed by the city of Spokane will no longer represent Spokane police Officer Karl F. Thompson Jr. in the legal battles stemming from the 2006 death of Otto Zehm, according to a recent court filing.
Federal prosecutors have repeatedly raised the issue of conflicts of interest in the city’s representation of Thompson at the same time city attorneys are representing other officers involved in the incident who are expected to testify against Thompson at an upcoming trial.
The city’s move comes just days before a federal judge was scheduled to rule on whether the city attorney’s office can represent both Thompson and the other officers in the civil suit brought by Zehm’s mother against the city. That lawsuit has been put on hold until after the completion the federal criminal trial against Thompson, which is scheduled to begin June 2.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Timothy Durkin, in arguments filed last month, said the city’s representation of Thompson created “obvious and apparent conflicts.” That filing singled out Assistant City Attorney Rocky Treppiedi’s role in the Zehm incident, in which the mentally ill janitor was beaten, shocked with a Taser and hogtied on the ground by police before dying in a hospital two days later.
But Treppiedi, in a phone interview, denied that the city’s motion to withdraw from representing Thompson had anything to do with allegations raised by Durkin in court filings leading up to a May 17 hearing, where U.S. District Court Judge Fred Van Sickle was expected to rule on the matter.
“I don’t care what Mr. Durkin puts in a filing,” Treppiedi said. “We reviewed everything carefully and there are no conflicts of interest. Just because a lawyer on the other side of a case wants to create a conflict doesn’t mean one exists. I’ll leave it at that.”
A request for an interview with City Attorney Howard Delaney was answered by city spokeswoman Marlene Feist, who wrote in an e-mail, “This decision was made to simplify case management for the City’s lean Legal Department and could change as the civil case progresses.”
She said that Thompson’s defense by private attorney Carl Oreskovich is being paid for by the city and “Karl Thompson remains indemnified by the City in the civil case. We continue to have no identifiable conflicts between the defendants in the civil case or between Karl Thompson and the City,” Feist wrote.
Durkin said he could not comment about any aspect of the case, and Oreskovich did not return two phone calls to his office.
Oreskovich has also been appointed by the court, at taxpayer expense, to defend Thompson against the felony charges that he used excessive force and lied to investigators about his confrontation with Zehm.
But Durkin, in a 74-page court filing in advance of Van Sickle’s ruling on the conflict issue, detailed numerous concerns about Treppiedi’s dual role in representing Thompson and the other police officers at the same time:
•From October 2008 through June 2009: “Treppiedi was briefing and preparing most of the Spokane Police Department and/or the City of Spokane witnesses called to testify before the grand jury. It was also learned that Treppiedi was debriefing (police department) witnesses who appeared before the grand jury.”
• Feb. 3, 2009: “Durkin sends a letter to Oreskovich confirming the parties’ previous conversations concerning Mr. Oreskovich’s exclusive representation of Mr. Thompson and expressing concern over Treppiedi’s reported disclosure of grand jury material, gleaned from other witnesses, to Thompson and Oreskovich.”
• Feb. 18, 2009: “Treppiedi was now asserting (notwithstanding Oreskovich’s independent retention at public expense) that Treppiedi and the City Attorney’s Office also continued to represent Thompson’s global ‘interests’ arising out of his non-lethal and lethal force on Otto Zehm.”
In the same court filing, Durkin pointed out that Assistant Chief Jim Nicks first consulted with Treppiedi before giving a media interview on the night of the incident. During the interview, Nicks claimed Zehm “lunged at” and “attacked” Thompson, who used a “straight-handle baton as a defensive technique.”
Five days later, Treppiedi and Nicks reviewed surveillance videos from the Zip Trip security cameras that showed “no ‘lunge’ or attack,” Durkin wrote. But Nicks maintained for several months that Zehm lunged or attacked, until the videos were released publicly. Durkin also detailed a meeting between Treppiedi and Medical Examiner Dr. Sally Aiken on July 19, 2006, where Treppiedi showed up claiming to have an appointment.
“Dr. Aiken was uncomfortable meeting with Treppiedi, since he is not a prosecutor … and was not entitled to obtain any information from the ME relative to Mr. Zehm’s autopsy,” Durkin wrote. “Mr. Treppiedi claimed, however, that he was generally interested in soliciting Dr. Aiken’s opinions relative to (Spokane Police Department) policies, not Zehm’s autopsy.”
Aiken agreed to meet with Treppiedi briefly, who asked if the medical examiner had been told by detectives about a mask that had been placed on Zehm’s face before he stopped breathing.
“Treppiedi wanted to know what Dr. Aiken was going to do in response to the seemingly late disclosed ‘non-rebreather’ mask being involved in Zehm’s detention,” Durkin wrote. “Dr. Aiken declined any further conversation about the confidential Zehm autopsy.”
Closing Geiger: Wise or worrisome? 
No_Forked_Tongues on May 06 at 12:05 a.m.
having treppiedi represent thompson is a bonus. He couldnt have anyone more incompetent.
Pat O'Leary on May 06 at 5:58 a.m.
Where did all the comments that were previously posted about this story disappear to? I see this happen every day. It’s as though the editor removes comments that appear to be too controversial or he wants to spin the story into a different direction. I know that last evening this story had 6 to 10 comments attached. Where are they now? I don’t care for censorship at any level or by anyone. Kindly leave all comments in place unless they are obscene or libelous. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press should go hand in hand.
Ron_the_Cop on May 06 at 6:07 a.m.
Pat OLeary,
I’m very sensitive to your point, however this is a software related issue. I’ve had comments pulled in the past too many times to mention. According to Ryan Pitts, Online Editor, when the S-R runs a breaking story on the web and then later the print version appears, a new post thread is created. Sometimes if an article is later edited it will create a new post thread. What you have to do is scroll down in the local article thread and find the previous post. Here’s the link to the previous post with the comment thread intact.
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/may/05/city-attorneys-no-longer-will-represent-thompson/
liarsinnews on May 06 at 6:12 a.m.
I agree with you, Pat. I talked to Ryan Pitts about it quite sometime ago and the excuse he gave me was feeble. If what Ryan told me was true, it might require a small program change. Of course the Spokesman is known for censorship. Anybody submitting letters to the editor is aware the letters, for the most part, are rigged.
philipgregory on May 06 at 7:12 a.m.
Assistant City Attorney Rocky Treppiedi talks real tough… but US Distr Atty have LAW not bluff and bulleying behind them.
Spokane and the SPD seem to believe laws don’t apply to them.
We know what kind of people believe they are above the law.
philipgregory on May 06 at 7:14 a.m.
The SR is still a pawn in the Spokane political game. Instead of taking an independent active role, as they should.
nancym on May 06 at 7:20 a.m.
The comments on yesterday’s version of this story remain posted at http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/may/05/city-attorneys-no-longer-will-represent-thompson/#comments. They have not been taken down.
As for why this happens: The URL for each story (and thus comments) is based on a date, which can’t be changed without breaking links and causing other problems. To mitigate, we try to reference folks to those other comments. The topics page on Otto Zehm, http://www.spokesman.com/topics/otto-zehm/, has every version posted on it, as well.
liarsinnews on May 06 at 7:27 a.m.
Nancy Malone, its obvious you`ve never programed software. Its not a big change to carry over comments made the night before.
BillTann on May 06 at 7:47 a.m.
Last evening’s comments about Mr. Treppieddi were running quite negative but certainly none were at all libelous. To argue that removal was due to an uncorrectable programing problem seems rather silly. The possibility of censorship created a threshold issue in our household and our print edition subscription was terminated this morning as a result.
Pat O'Leary on May 06 at 7:48 a.m.
I read many newspapers and their commentary, and they all seem capable of carrying over threads from day to day. Seattle Pi, Times, NY Times, Wa Post.
No_Forked_Tongues on May 06 at 8:53 a.m.
Instead of creating a new story/link, just modify/change/edit the current one. That way you wont lose the commentary to the original and updated story.
addyh on May 06 at 9:03 a.m.
Let me reiterate, the previous comments were NOT removed - they are still there, with the version of the story posted yesterday evening.
A new version is created at midnight when all print stories are exported to the web.
There are now two versions of this story on the Web site. All of this has to do with our paywall and what we promise online subscribers.
But also let me reiterate, removing obscene, defamatory, threatening or off-topic comments is not censorship - we reserve that right on our website and as some of you have discovered, we excercise it.
MrNatural on May 06 at 9:09 a.m.
Hey Zeus Marimba!
How in heavens name can we compile all this self-righteous indignation if you keep dividing it through re-release? Were going for high scores and recognition here bub!…if I repost on next day’s story you will think I’ve got OCD
hsmom on May 06 at 9:09 a.m.
All you have to do is look for the old link- no big deal. Maybe the bigger papers have different software and bigger budgets. While I’d love to see another paper in the area, because the SR is definately inclined to lean in one direction, finding the old link is no biggie. It is silly to complain about such a small inconveinience in a free site. Or better yet, start another news site, that would be great. The thread is supposed to be about the Officer who killed Otto. I find it disrespectful to Mr. Zehm to get bunged up about tiny tangents.
lewis8457 on May 06 at 9:33 a.m.
This is SR’s site and they can do what ever they want. when i have posts removed i just stay away for a while. There are some posters that flag posts by people they don’t like.
I am happy to see the feds moving forward and they are aware of the scum in our City Hall and SPD.
I am waiting with baited breath for the trial to start. At first i was concerned the fed might play the favor card but now it looks like they are ready to wipe the floor with some of our highest paid boobs.
it will be interesting to see if Thompson does go to the big house if the city will turn face and sue him for all the pay he recieved waiting for trial.
Ron_the_Cop on May 06 at 12:44 p.m.
Lewis,
At the risk of being OCD, I will repost my comment in the other thread that links to other discussions that involve the issue of Otto Zehm et all. I would also encourage others wishing alternative news sites to view Larry Shook’s new blog that now has two commentaries of real substance concerning Spokane politics:
http://larryshook.com/
And an observation (Yes OCD) - I find it very interesting that the feds entered the Zehm case, impaneled a federal grand jury and appear to be in search of the truth. A grand jury is a useful tool to secure truthful statements from those that have been less so originally.
My question is why didn’t the feds have the stomach to do the same thing in the RPS bond fraud cases and the related manslaughter death of Jo Savage. In my opinion these are far more related to the underlying issues in Spokane that must be addressed before any meaningful change in Spokane PD can occur. In saying this I am in no way dismissing the death of Otto Zehm. The Zehm death is only symptomatic of the dysfunctional Spokane government that has been so thoroughly corrupted by an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Past two-term President of the Riverside Police Officers’ Assn.
Riverside PD, CA
*****
Link to other post:
http://tinyurl.com/22tum9z
LOL Spoketucky,
There are many issues here that were covered in the comment thread of the other article by Clouse:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/apr/21/charge-stands-in-zehm-case/
Yes, Mr. Treppiedi is his own worst enemy. That’s the point the Asst. US Attorney was making in his filing. There are conflict of interest issues here whether Mr. Treppiedi chooses to recognize them or not. I discuss some of these in the other thread as a former police union president of some 350 officers. No need to muddy the waters further here.
A related discussion also occurred in this S-R OP/ED re the Guild’s vote of no confidence. With what is coming out in the federal investigation re statements of Asst. Nicks in this case, I’m very surprised that Chief Kirkpatrick is giving him her unequivocal support as her replacement should she get the Seattle job:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2010/apr/29/police-guild-voting-stunt-hurt-its-own-rank-and/
Det. Ron Wright (Retired)
Shylock13 on May 06 at 4:06 p.m.
Regardless of your opinions on the way the S-R deals with its web site, and regardless of your opinions about Mr. Treppiedi, we, the taxpayers, are still paying a private attorney to represent Officer Thompson. That costs a whole lot more than a city attorney! And the Zehm case, as I read in the papers and on line, is filled with lies, contradictions, prevarications, hedging, and both misfeasance and malfeasance. Is there a way that the taxpayers can ultimately sue Officer Thompson to recover our hard-earned money paid to the city?
JayNW on May 06 at 4:46 p.m.
has anyone ever thought that maybe the PD didn’t train these officers correctly on how to handle certain situations? And that maybe these officers had absolutely no intention of Zehm to die, but thought they were doing the control techniques the way they were trained? And that the city and the PD higher ups don’t want any part of the responsibility, so they will let those officers hang- trying to say its soley the officers fault and not the fault of the training provided by their academy- which is controlled by the city?
There’s a heck of a lot more to this story, and while I think Zehms death could have been prevented, I also believe the officers being tried are merely scapegoats of a much bigger issue.
Pat O'Leary on May 06 at 6:06 p.m.
HSMOM
This is the last I will say on this subject…this is not a free site. One either has to be a print subscriber or a subscriber to the on-line site to use this service and since I pay for it, I reserve my right to complain as much as I like. If you don’t like what I say….feel free not to read my comments.
eagleproducer on May 06 at 6:42 p.m.
JayNW: You are correct that the Spokane Police Department does not train its officers with the latest techniques available should they encounter those with mental illnesses. That does not excuse altering the truth and subsequently attempting to conceal the altering of truth in regards to Otto’s death.
As it happens far too often in Spokane, it will take a large monetary settlement to force action on what has been decades of negligent training of SPD officers in regards to the mentally ill. Thompson might even have a case against the city as a result. I”ll wager that notion has entered the head of Oreskovic more than once!
Ron_the_Cop on May 06 at 7:25 p.m.
JayNW,
Your point is well taken and I’ve made it in these threads before. At the minimum this was a wrongful death case from the time Zehm was subdued e.g., improper techniques, improper use of the mask, and failure to monitor vital signs. As the feds dig deeper I have more concerns on how Ofc. Thompson approached Zehm. Had this been an attempted robbery call I would cut Thompson some slack in the amount of force applied to secure compliance. However it’s now apparent this was really dispatched as a suspicious circumstance/person call and the time between contact and Thompson using force was minimal at best. Now we have changing statements by those involved. At the head of the list is Asst. Chief Nicks which concerns me the most.I too believe Thompson may be being made a scapegoat for police administration re police policy, procedure, and training.
misjustice on May 06 at 7:26 p.m.
I’ve often wondered if many of the problems with the SPD, use of excessive force, killing of unarmed citizens (Jay Olsen as well as the above case), DUIs, isn’t a RECRUITMENT problem, exacerbated by a TRAINING problem??? Both of which are magnified by a lack of leadership????
No_Forked_Tongues on May 06 at 7:29 p.m.
We always used to say. We train to fight the last war and I bet the SPD is no different. But that doesn’t mean a trained response is to beat the crap out of an innocent guy whose retreating, place them in a position to suffocate, put a rebreather mask on w/o oxygen and then LIE and LIE and LIE about it all the up to Nicks. I may be wrong but I hope that was not the standard trained response of the SPD at that time.
and Kudos to Chief Kirkpatrick for holding the rank and file to higher standards than they have ever been held to before. No wonder the Guild is squirming like worms on a hot skillet.