PHILADELPHIA – Though a man who spent more than 27 years, wrongly incarcerated and who filed a civil suit against the City of Philadelphia and various officers involved in his arrest and prosecution has passed away, his estate has taken up the banner for his case to continue.
Marco Maldonado first filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on Aug. 30, 2022 versus the City of Philadelphia, Detective Michael Cahill, Detective Herberto Aponte, Officer Bruce Dougherty, Officer Bruce DeNoble, Officer Robert Ahrndt, Officer John Broadbent, C.E.S. Richard Henderson, A.D.A. Robert Campolongo, A.D.A. John Does and Officers John Doe(s). All parties are of Philadelphia.
(Defendants Aponte, Ahrndt, Broadbent, Henderson, Campolongo and Officer John Does were later dismissed from the litigation, through the filing of an amended complaint in November 2022 and mutual stipulation in May 2023.)
“In October 1993, plaintiff Marco Maldonado was wrongfully convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for a crime he did not commit. More than 27 years later, upon consideration of Mr. Maldonado’s Post Conviction Relief Act petition, Mr. Maldonado’s conviction was finally vacated. The Maldonado PCRA and wrongful conviction were uncontested by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, who agreed to both the vacating of the Maldonado life sentence and the grant of unsecure bail while Mr. Maldonado awaited a new trial. Mr. Maldonado subsequently pled no-contest to third-degree murder after the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office threatened to reinstitute bail in this matter, which would have required Mr. Maldonado to await trial while in prison,” the suit stated.
“Philadelphia police detectives and attorneys from the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office violated the constitutional rights of Mr. Maldonado, leading to him being induced into an unknowing, unintelligent and involuntary plea of guilt. This induced plea resulted in Mr. Maldonado unjustly serving nearly three decades in prison. Plaintiff brings this action under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, seeking redress for the extraordinary misconduct of defendants Dougherty, DeNoble, Cahill, Campolongo and Doe(s), who coerced Mr. Maldonado’s confession, fabricated evidence, engaged in deliberate deception by concealing and/or suppressing material evidence, employed unlawful investigative techniques, presented false testimony, and, together with other Philadelphia police officers, denied the plaintiff due process of law and a fair trial. The actions and conduct of the defendant officers were the results of policies, practices, customs and deliberate indifference on the part of defendant City of Philadelphia, including the failure to properly train and supervise officers assigned to investigate homicides, and the failure to take disciplinary and remedial action against the defendant detectives and other police officers who commit serious misconduct and abuses of authority.”
Maldonado had initially been convicted of the Dec. 23, 1992 murder of Alberto Gonzalez Sr. in Philadelphia, committed with a .38 caliber handgun. During the investigation of that crime, defendant officers DeNoble and Dougherty claimed that Maldonado had possessed both the handgun and a bullet used to kill Gonzalez. However, that was later proven untrue and both DeNoble and Dougherty were terminated by the Philadelphia Police Department, for planting and fabricating evidence.
Maldonado, while under the influence of drugs, was brought to police headquarters and questioned for 18 hours by detectives. He was so intoxicated, according to his suit, that he did not remember the statements he gave.
Among several pieces of evidence not provided to him or his counsel at the time, his suit said, was that Philadelphia police first suspected the decedent’s son, Alberto Gonzalez Jr., of his father’s murder, but that suspicion shifted in Maldonado’s direction on the word of a witness statement from a woman named Mayra Camacho. Her initial statement indicated that Maldonado had entered the victim’s home, two gunshots were heard and Maldonado then exited the home. Camacho would recant this statement in September 2017.
Prior to his trial date in 1993, Maldonado agreed to plea to murder in the second degree and defendants A.D.A. Campolongo and/or Doe(s) agreed not to proceed against plaintiff on a charge of murder in the first degree or a potential death sentence. Subsequently, Maldonado was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment in October of that year.
During his term, Maldonado represented himself, continued to gather more information on his case and earned both an undergraduate degree from Villanova University and a master’s degree in humanities from California State University – Dominguez Hills.
“After more than 27 years, upon consideration of Mr. Maldonado’s habeas petition and his latest Post Conviction Relief Act petition, the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office did not contest Mr. Maldonado’s PCRA petition. Mr. Maldonado’s conviction was vacated, and the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office withdrew the charges of first and second-degree murder. Mr. Maldonado was released on $10,000 unsecured bail while awaiting a new trial on third-degree murder. Following his release from prison, Mr. Maldonado was subsequently presented with an offer to plead no-contest to third-degree murder or in the alternative, return to prison to await trial. Mr. Maldonado, having been free from his unlawful imprisonment for six months after spending 27 years in prison for a crime he did not commit, did not wish to return to prison under any circumstances. Mr. Maldonado was constructively coerced by the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office to enter a plea of no-contest to third-degree murder, when faced with the prospect of returning to jail for an undetermined period to await a new trial, even though he was confident that he would be successful in gaining an acquittal at a trial,” the suit said.
“On April 19, 2021, Mr. Maldonado pled no-contest to third-degree murder and was found guilty. Mr. Maldonado was sentenced to 10 to 20 years of state incarceration, however, since Mr. Maldonado received credit for 27 years he previously served as a result of the conduct of the defendants, he was released from the courtroom and returned home to his family that evening without any court supervision. The actions and conduct of the individual defendants as described above violated the plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law and a fair trial. The fabrication of and tampering with evidence by the defendant officers violated the plaintiff’s right to due process of law and a fair trial. The defendant Officers and/or ADA Campolongo and/or Doe(s) were deliberately deceptive by concealing and/or suppressing critical evidence violating Mr. Maldonado’s right to due process of law and a fair trial. Defendants’ failure to conduct a reasonably thorough investigation that considered evidence negating the existence of grounds to prosecute Mr. Maldonado, denied the plaintiff due process and a fair trial. As a result of the actions and inactions of the defendant officers, Marco Maldonado was compelled to stand trial in a capital murder case, causing him substantial harms.”
In an Aug. 4, 2023 answer to the case, the defendants maintained that their investigation was “proper and lawful”, and that Maldonado was guilty of the crime for which he had been convicted. Among other defenses, they added that they are entitled to immunity under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act, that Maldonado’s criminal charges were held over at a preliminary hearing and the holding over of criminal charges is affirmative evidence of probable cause, and that Maldonado’s no contest plea bars him from proceeding with this suit.
On Jan. 9, the defendants filed notice with the Court that Maldonado had passed away in October 2023, while his instant case remains pending.
In an essay titled “Death By Incarceration” and published by Drexel University prior to his passing, the late Maldonado elaborated on his experiences.
“Incarceration is not easy, especially when you are innocent. Sadly, the criminal legal system does not notice the difference between the innocent and the guilty. In most cases, the exonerated are released from prison without an apology from anyone within the legal system. Where most of us come from, we are unfortunately accustomed to mistreatment without apology,” Maldonado said.
“In some ways, this adds insight to the journey otherwise not gained. It revealed to me how some people are so immersed in ideology and systemic oppression that they lose their humanity while seeing the incarcerated as inhuman. Perhaps, many have lost their own resilience. Perhaps, they have given up on humanity. Whatever the case, we must remain resilient in order to recover what was taken from us. Let us all use our circumstances to our advantage. Unfair treatment is not an excuse to give up. I hope these words, sharing a part of my story, will help someone recover from their injustice, and exercise a level of resilience commensurate to their condition.”
UPDATE
On March 6, counsel filed an uncontested motion to substitute Maldonado’s Estate, represented by his brother Javier, as the plaintiff in this action.
“At the time this suit was filed, plaintiff Marco Maldonado was a citizen of Pennsylvania. On or about Oct. 15, 2023, Plaintiff Marco Maldonado passed away. On Oct. 23, 2023, a death certificate naming Marco Maldonado as the decedent was filed by the Pennsylvania Department of Health. On Dec. 15, 2023 Javier Maldonado was issued letters of administration on behalf of the Estate of Marco Antonio Maldonado. Javier Maldonado is the brother of plaintiff Marco Maldonado,” the motion to substitute said.
“On Jan. 9, 2024, a suggestion of death upon the record as to Marco Maldonado was filed in this matter. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1), ‘If a party dies and the claim is not extinguished, the court may order substitution of the proper party. A motion for substitution may be made by any party or by the decedent’s successor or representative.’ Decedent Marco Maldonado passed away prior to his claim being extinguished. Defendants do not contest plaintiff’s motion.”
In an accompanying memorandum, counsel stated that the plaintiff “has complied with all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(a)(1) by filing a suggestion of death upon the record and a timely motion to substitute” and that “granting plaintiff’s motion will allow for full and final resolution of the pending action.”
Furthermore, counsel added the defendants “have not been prejudiced and do not contest the filing of this motion.”
For counts of deprivation of due process and a fair trial in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, civil rights conspiracy and failure to intervene in violation of 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, damages and punitive damages, the plaintiff is seeking, jointly and severally, compensatory and punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, costs including reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1988 for all 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 claims, any and all other relief and a jury trial as to each defendant and as to each count.
The plaintiff is represented by Shawn K. Page, Zainab Khadija Shields and Kevin V. Mincey of Mincey Fitzpatrick Ross, in Philadelphia.
The defendants are represented by Bailey Axe and Danielle E. Walsh of the City of Philadelphia’s Law Department.
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania case 2:22-cv-03474
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com