PHILADELPHIA – A panel of judges from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has ruled there was no evidence to a civil rights case initiated by a man who claimed prosecutors conspired to add charges after his arrest and prevent his exoneration.
A contingent of Third Circuit judges L. Felipe Restrepo, Paul B. Matey and Anthony J. Scirica ruled April 5 to uphold a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in favor of defendant Lauren Leigh Hackett and against plaintiff Trenton John Tompkins.
In September 2017, Tompkins was arrested on several charges and defendant Hackett, a Mercer County assistant public defender, was appointed to represent him.
Hackett told Tompkins that prosecutors conditionally agreed to drop the pending charges against him, if he passed a polygraph test. Tompkins claimed that one month before the polygraph test, in late September 2017, he was placed in medical isolation, assaulted by correctional officers and forcibly drugged.
For the duration of time he was being held in medical isolation, in late October 2017, Tompkins’ family retained private counsel for him. Subsequently, the Mercer County Public Defender’s Office filed a motion to withdraw as counsel, which was granted.
Tompkins alleged that neither Hackett nor his private counsel were in attendance for the polygraph examination in early November 2017, and that his private counsel was not informed of it.
“Tompkins claimed that the initial charges against him were not withdrawn after the examination, and that the statements he made during the examination allowed prosecutors to add additional charges against him. His private counsel subsequently filed an omnibus pre-trial motion challenging the examination, but the hearing on the motion was repeatedly delayed,” the Third Circuit said.
“Tompkins claimed that his counsel negotiated a plea agreement for him in February 2019, but that delays from rescheduling the hearing added more than a year to his sentence. Tompkins subsequently wrote to Hackett to request the terms of her agreement with prosecutors about the polygraph examination. Tompkins claimed that another public defender wrote back to say that Hackett would communicate only with Tompkins’ appointed counsel in his pending post-conviction proceedings. Tompkins maintained that Hackett schemed with prosecutors to lengthen his term of incarceration.”
In July 2020, Tompkins filed a lawsuit in the District Court alleging civil rights claims against Hackett pursuant to Section 1983 and later amended his complaint. Hackett moved to dismiss Tompkins’ amended complaint and after Tompkins filed a response, the District Court granted Hackett’s motion and dismissed Tompkins’ complaint with prejudice and without leave to amend.
This led Tompkins to appeal to the Third Circuit, who found the dismissal was warranted.
“The District Court properly dismissed Tompkins’ claims against Hackett. Public defenders do not act under color of state law for purposes of Section 1983 when they ‘perform a lawyer’s traditional functions as counsel to a defendant in a criminal proceeding,” the Third Circuit said.
“Tompkins alleged that Hackett negotiated with prosecutors on his behalf to drop the charges against him if he passed a polygraph examination and that her representation of him ended shortly thereafter when he retained private counsel. He did not claim that Hackett knew of his alleged mistreatment in prison or withheld information from his private counsel, who was already representing Tompkins at the time of the polygraph examination.”
Additionally, the federal appellate court stated that Tompkins had not shown proof of a conspiracy between the entities who prosecuted him.
“Tompkins’ allegations of conspiracy with prosecutors are conclusory; he provided no factual allegations to support them beyond his own speculation. Thus, Tompkins cannot establish that his public defender acted outside of her traditional capacity as his counsel for the limited time that she represented him. Tompkins has not clarified or added to his allegations in subsequent filings in the District Court or on appeal. Under these circumstances, the District Court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that it would be futile to grant Tompkins leave to amend his complaint,” the Third Circuit said.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit case 20-3590
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:20-cv-01141
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com