Fogle v. Sokol
| Decision Date | 20 April 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 19-1066,19-1066 |
| Citation | 957 F.3d 148 |
| Parties | Lewis James FOGLE v. John SOKOL, Pennsylvania State Trooper; Michael Steffee, Pennsylvania State Trooper; Donald Bechwith, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper; Joseph Stephen, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper; John Bardroff, Corporal; Andrew Mollura, Corporal; Glenn Walp, Lieutenant, in their individual capacities; County of Indiana, Pennsylvania ; Gregory Olson, Indiana County District Attorney, in his official and individual capacity; William Martin, Indiana County Assistant District Attorney, in his individual capacity, County of Indiana, Pennsylvania, Gregory Olson and William Martin, Appellants |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit |
Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, Esq., Emma K. Freudenberger, Esq., Mary K. McCarthy, Esq., [ARGUED], Peter J. Neufeld, Esq., Neufeld Scheck & Brustin, 99 Hudson Street, 8th Floor, New York, NY 10013, Thomas J. Farrell, Esq., Farrell & Reisinger, 300 Koppers Building, 436 Seventh Avenue, Suite 300, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Attorneys for Plaintiff-Appellee
Michael E. Kennedy, Esq., Office of Attorney General of Pennsylvania, 1251 Waterfront Place, Pittsburgh, PA 15222, Attorney for Defendants Donald Bechwith, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper; John Bardroff, Corporal; John Sokol, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper; Andrew Molllura, Corporal; Michael Steffee, Pennsylvania State Police Trooper; and Glenn Walp, Lieutenant, in their individual capacities
Marie M. Jones, Esq., [ARGUED] Maria N. Pipak, Esq., Jones Passodelis, 707 Grant Street, Gulf Tower, Suite 3410, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, Attorney for Defendants-Appellants County of Indiana; Gregory Olson, Indiana County District Attorney, in his official and individual capacity; and William Martin, Indiana County Assistant District Attorney, in his individual capacity
Before: KRAUSE, MATEY, Circuit Judges, and QUIÑONES ALEJANDRO,* District Judge.
Lewis James Fogle spent more than three decades in prison for a crime he says he did not commit. Now free, he alleges that his incarceration was no accident, sketching a widespread conspiracy by law enforcement officials to violate his civil rights. Implicated in this alleged scheme are former Indiana County District Attorney Gregory Olson, former Indiana County Assistant District Attorney William Martin, and their one-time employer, Indiana County. They all raise the shield of absolute immunity, a judicially created exception to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. But the immunity from civil liability enjoyed by prosecutors hinges on the sanctity of our judicial process, not "any special esteem." Kalina v. Fletcher , 522 U.S. 118, 127, 118 S.Ct. 502, 139 L.Ed.2d 471 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). And so only truly prosecutorial functions, not investigative conduct, justify complete protection from suit. Fogle’s complaint alleges acts by Olson and Martin that, taken as true, fall outside the narrow doctrine of absolute immunity and survive a motion to dismiss. Fogle’s claims against Indiana County survive too because there is no exception to the final judgment rule allowing us to review municipal liability in this appeal. Thus, we will affirm the District Court’s order denying Olson and Martin’s motion to dismiss based on absolute immunity and dismiss Indiana County’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
We recount only the relevant history, accepting as true, as we must, the untested allegations in the complaint.
In 1976, a passerby discovered the body of fifteen-year-old Deann "Kathy" Long in a wooded area near her home in Indiana County, Pennsylvania. Kathy’s death was senseless and horrific, involving a brutal assault, rape, and finally, a gunshot to the head. Swiftly, law enforcement opened an investigation with representatives from the Indiana County District Attorney’s Office, including Olson and Martin (or collectively, "the Prosecutors"), and the Pennsylvania State Police (the " "). The State Troopers soon learned from Kathy’s sisters and family friends "that Kathy was last seen getting into a blue car with an unknown man" on the day of the crime. (App. at 44.) Two of her sisters, ages nine and twelve, described the man "as between 20 and 30 years old, with blue eyes, black hair that came below his ears and curled at the ends, sideburns, heavy eyebrows, and a heavy mustache over his upper lip."1 (App. at 45.)
Lewis Fogle did not match the description, having "straight reddish-blonde hair that dropped down his back and a matching, full beard that reached his waist." (App. at 45.) But Fogle’s brother Dennis owned a blue car, and rumors around town suggested he "invited a teenage girl to spend the night with him the night after Kathy’s body was found." (App. at 45.) It was a thin clue, and a search of Dennis’s car "found nothing of evidentiary value." (App. at 46.)
A frustrating year passed with little progress. With no fresh leads, the investigation turned to Earl Elderkin, known in town as " ‘Spaceman,’ because he claimed that he and his kids were from outer space." (App. at 46.) Elderkin had drawn attention from law enforcement in the days after the murder because he fit the description of the unknown man in the blue car. Though Elderkin first denied any connection to the crime, he eventually claimed to have been present during the attack. He offered an alleged eyewitness account, one short on details, perhaps owing to his use of drugs and alcohol. He confessed to being in the car that picked up a girl at the Long residence and witnessing an unidentified man shoot her with a rifle. But soon enough, Elderkin failed a polygraph examination, and the investigation slowed to a halt.
More than three years passed with no leads. Then, Elderkin reappeared, checking himself into a hospital for a psychiatric evaluation. There, he asked to speak with police about Kathy and offered two more accounts. In one of these versions, he implicated sixteen unidentified men; in the other, he named two specific individuals, but neither was Lewis Fogle. And these new contradictory statements only diminished Elderkin’s credibility. His stories included variations on the number of people involved in the murder and consistently referenced passengers in the blue car, a detail Kathy’s sisters never mentioned. Even Elderkin agreed he was unreliable, stating he was not sure whether he had witnessed a murder, or merely imagined the whole thing.
But the investigation pressed on. Olson, working with the State Troopers, turned to hypnosis to try to clarify Elderkin’s stories. Olson’s choice of expert was unusual: an English teacher with no formal hypnosis training. Unusual too was the actual hypnosis session, with the "hypnotist" acting "[a]t the behest of Defendants" to use "undue suggestion to obtain a statement from Elderkin." (App. at 48). But even that direction proved insufficient, as Elderkin waffled between versions of his earlier statements and a new story implicating, for the first time, both Dennis and Lewis Fogle. Following the hypnosis sessions, Olson and the State Troopers again interviewed Elderkin. And this time, he at last provided a firm statement naming the Fogle brothers as two of four attackers. That statement became the cornerstone of the investigation.
Elderkin’s latest statement provided both a new theory and obvious challenges. For example, Elderkin’s timeline of the crime did not fit the chronology provided by Kathy’s sisters and friends. To advance their case, the State Troopers brought in Kathy’s older sister, Patty, and one of Patty’s friends, for a long interview. Eventually, under intimidation and threats of arrest by the State Troopers, they altered their story to align with Elderkin’s latest story. At least for a time, as Patty’s friend recanted her statement soon after leaving the station.
By using the combined statements of Elderkin and Patty Long, and without disclosing the wide-ranging inconsistencies, the State Troopers obtained criminal complaints against the Fogle brothers and two others. Then, following hours of interrogation, threats, and a steady stream of suggestion in the form of details from Elderkin’s statement, Dennis Fogle confessed and implicated his brother Lewis. The next day, after even more examination by Olson and the State Troopers, Dennis Fogle shaped his statement to fit with Elderkin’s most recent account.
The case quickly began to unravel as the defendants discovered Elderkin’s wandering and inconsistent theories had largely powered the criminal complaints. Timely support soon arrived from jailhouse informants recruited and counseled by the State Troopers. Working collaboratively with law enforcement, and pursuing promises of leniency, two of Lewis Fogle’s cellmates claimed Fogle confessed to Kathy’s murder. Olson and Martin "either knew about, encouraged, or permitted" this strategy. (App. at 54.) While the State Troopers characterized these statements as voluntary, they and the Prosecutors "hid" their role in pursuing the witnesses and their offers of favorable treatment. (App. at 54.)
In the meantime, the evidence continued to dissolve. A judge barred Elderkin from testifying and suppressed Dennis Fogle’s confession. Quickly, the State Troopers obtained a new statement from yet another jailhouse witness, again by feeding him details and offering leniency. And as before, while Olson and Martin "knew about, encouraged, or permitted" this strategy, neither the defendants nor the court knew anything about their actions. (App. at 56.)
Without Elderkin’s testimony or Dennis Fogle’s confession, only the charges against Lewis Fogle proceeded to trial, some six years after Kathy’s murder. A jury found Fogle guilty of second-degree murder, leading to a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. In 2015, Lewis...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Batch v. Lauricia
...In other words, a prosecutor will not be entitled to absolute immunity where the complained-of conduct is investigatory in nature. Fogle, 957 F.3d at 160. the precise function that a prosecutor is performing is a fact-specific analysis.” Id. This analysis has two overlapping steps: first, t......
-
Stevens v. Sullum
...must show that the conduct triggering absolute immunity 'clearly appear[s] on the face of the complaint'" (citing Fogle v. Sokol, 957 F.3d 148, 161 (3d Cir. 2020))). In the current stage of this litigation, however, there remain clear material issues of fact on the face of the complaint as ......
-
Saint-Jean v. Cnty. of Bergen, Civ. No. 19-10680 (ES) (MAH)
...1409 (3d Cir. 1991). Ordinarily, the Court assesses absolute immunity as to each claim asserted against a prosecutor. Fogle v. Sokol , 957 F.3d 148, 161 (3d Cir. 2020). Here, however, Mr. Saint-Jean pleads most of the counts in the Complaint in blanket fashion, against prosecutors and non-p......
-
Weimer v. Cnty. of Fayette
...liability" because they "perform special functions" similar "to functions that would have been immune when Congress enacted § 1983." Fogle , 957 F.3d at 158 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Noting both "a common law tradition of prosecutorial immunity and strong policy consi......
-
Prisoners' Rights
...arraignment because constituted exercise of prosecutorial discretion in preparing case and deciding how to prosecute); Fogle v. Sokol, 957 F.3d 148, 159 (3d Cir. 2020) (prosecutor absolutely immune for prosecutorial functions but not investigative conduct); Annappareddy v. Pascale, 996 F.3d......