11, 2006, which appear to be duplicates. 7 . See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 320, 96 S.Ct. 1551, 47 L.Ed.2d 810 (1976) (finding adverse inference acceptable based on an inmate’s silence during disciplinary proceedings); SEC v. Colello, 139 F.3d 674, 677 (9th Cir.1998) (finding adverse inference and other penalties appropriate where plaintiff invokes privilege); Wehling v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 608 F.2d 1084, 1089 (5th Cir.1979) (permitting three-year stay of discovery where plaintiff invoked Fifth Amendment privilege); Steiner v. Minn. Life Ins. Co., 85 P.3d 135, 136 (Colo.2004) (propounding factors for consideration before dismissing the case where a plaintiff invokes Fifth Amendment privilege prior to trial); Chaffin, Inc. v. Wallain, 689 P.2d 684, 688-89 (Colo.Ct.App. 1984) (<HOLDING>). Especially surprising is Plaintiff's heavy
holding that an adverse inference cannot be drawn from a defendants failure to call a witness if the states evidence establishes that the witness is an accomplice who would be entitled to assert a fifth amendment privilege holding adverse inference permissible in the face of defendants repeated invocation of fifth amendment privilege in discovery responses holding that the statement ill take the fifth was an assertion of the fifth amendment privilege holding that juveniles request for parent is invocation of fifth amendment rights holding that trial court may draw adverse inference from habeas petitioners silence as result of fifth amendment invocation during deposition