When School Board member Julius Melendez heads to trial in a case where he’s accused of battery as part of unwanted advances against an 18-year-old woman in his home, comments made by the School Board attorney to law enforcement will not be part of the prosecution’s case.
While the case is scheduled to begin Monday, defense attorney Migdalia Perez said it may be delayed as she awaits court-mandated phone records from the victim's cell provider in the days before and after the alleged incident.
An Osceola County judge ruled last week, as part of a motion to exclude the statements, that those made by attorney Frank Kruppenbacher to the Osceola County Sheriff’s Office that deals with this criminal matter are “considered confidential and privileged communication under Florida Statute” as part of attorney-client privilege.
The court also noted that, “Any statements made to Attorney Kruppenbacher that deal with School Board-related business would not be considered attorney-client conversations, and, therefore, are not privilege communications.”
Melendez made the calls to Kruppenbacher on July 2, 2023, a day after the School District of Osceola County received a complaint from the women asserting Melendez made unwanted advances toward her after serving her alcohol at a Kissimmee restaurant he then managed, and later at his home, days prior. School Superintendent Mark Shanoff forwarded the complaint to Kruppenbacher, who forwarded it to Sheriff’s General Counsel Deborah Barra.
At a hearing regarding the motion Dec. 20, Melendez said he called Kruppenbacher to see if this would come up with the School Board. They talked again days later, while Melendez was on vacation, when police came to see surveillance video from the restaurant. Kruppenbacher said he told Melendez to advise they comply with the police, and for him to get a criminal lawyer, of which he said he wasn’t one. But other details came up in the calls.
On Sept. 1, the State Attorney filed the charges, and told the Sheriff’s Office Kruppenbacher was another witness in the case, and he gave a detective a statement based on the two conversations. Melendez claimed those calls fell under state-protected attorney-client privilege. The judge agreed, in part, saying, “It is clear that Melendez was seeking legal advice even though Attorney Kruppenbacher advised him to hire a criminal defense attorney. The existence of the attorney/client privilege does not depend upon whether the client actually hires the attorney. ”
Last month, prosecutors dropped a charge of providing alcohol to someone under the age of 21. This was after Melendez’s defense team filed a motion to dismiss the charge, noting per the state statute, prosecutors are required to establish that selling, giving or serving the alcohol “must occur on a licensed premise.”
