Ogrod v. City of Phila.
| Decision Date | 12 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 21-2499 |
| Parties | Walter OGROD v. CITY OF PHILADELPHIA, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Michael D. Pomerantz, Joseph M. Marrone, Marrone Law Firm, LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for Walter Ogrod.
Joseph J. Santarone, Jr., Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin, Philadelphia, PA, for Detective Martin Devlin, Detective Paul Worrell.
Andrew Pomager, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for Detective Edward Rocks, Sergeant Laurence Nodiff.
Andrew Pomager, Kathryn Faris, Anne B. Taylor, City of Philadelphia Law Department, Philadelphia, PA, for City of Philadelphia.
Plaintiff Walter Ogrod commenced this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant the City of Philadelphia (the "City") and several individual Philadelphia police officers after Plaintiff was sentenced to death and spent twenty-eight years in prison in connection with a murder for which he was subsequently exonerated. Plaintiff alleges that his conviction was based on a coerced confession, fabricated evidence, and the withholding of exculpatory evidence. Presently pending before the court are two Motions to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), one filed by the City and Defendants Detective Edward Rocks, Sergeant Laurence Nodiff, and Lieutenant Joseph Washlick (collectively, the "City Defendants"), and one filed by Defendants Detective Martin Devlin and Detective Paul Worrell (collectively, the "Devlin Defendants"). For the following reasons, we grant both Motions in part and deny both Motions in part.
The Complaint alleges the following facts. On July 12, 1988, the body of four-year-old Barbara Jean Horn was found in a cardboard box, 1000 feet from her home at 1409 St. Vincent Street, at the curb next to some trash cans. (Compl. ¶ 18.) A subsequent autopsy determined that Barbara Jean had died of cerebral injuries. (Id. ¶ 37.) Barbara Jean's stepfather, John Fahy, told police that he last saw Barbara Jean alive at the Fahy residence at 7245 Rutland Street that same afternoon. (Id. ¶ 20.) At the time of the murder, Ogrod lived at 7244 Rutland Street, directly across the street from the Fahy residence. (Id. ¶ 27.) At least five eyewitnesses gave police descriptions of a man they had seen carrying and/or dragging a box through the neighborhood. (Id. ¶ 23.) Not one eyewitness identified Ogrod as the man with the box. (Id. ¶ 34.) Likewise, a tip line and significant media coverage never led to any evidence the implicated Ogrod in the crime. (Id. ¶¶ 46-48.) The investigation into Barbara Jean's murder went cold in January of 1990. (Id. ¶ 47.)
In 1992, there was a Special Investigations Unit within the Homicide Unit of the Philadelphia Police Department. (Id. ¶ 53.) Defendant Nodiff was a Sergeant in that Unit and reported to Defendant Washlick, his Liuetenant. (Id. ¶ 53.) In early 1992, Nodiff assigned the Devlin Defendants to reinvestigate Barbara Jean's unsolved murder. (Id. ¶ 54.) Defendant Rocks had previously been involved in an investigation of a 1996 murder that had occurred in Ogrod's basement, for which an acquaintance of Ogrod's was convicted. (Id. ¶¶ 56-58.)
The police file for that investigation included a photo of Ogrod's basement that depicted a weight machine with a lateral pull-down weight bar. (Id. ¶ 60.)
On April 5, 1992, Ogrod voluntarily appeared at the police station, without an attorney, "to be interviewed ostensibly as a witness" in connection with Barbara Jean's murder. (Id. ¶ 63.) The Devlin Defendants conducted an unrecorded interview, after which they produced what they said was a "verbatim hand-written transcription of Mr. Ogrod's confession to the murder of Barbara Jean." (Id. ¶ 65.) In the confession, Ogrod stated, inter alia, that he had sexually assaulted Barbara Jean in the basement of his home and then killed her by hitting her in the head with a pull-down bar from his weight set. (Id. ¶¶ 66-68.)
Ogrod was tried before a jury in 1993. (Id. ¶ 89.) Prior to the trial, Ogrod moved to suppress his April 5, 1992 confession, claiming that it was involuntary and coerced, but that motion was denied after a hearing. (Id. ¶¶ 80, 89.) At trial, during which Ogrod testified in his own defense, the only evidence directly linking Ogrod to the murder was his April 5 confession, which Ogrod contested in his testimony. (Id. ¶¶ 93, 97.) On November 4, 1993, after "multiple" days of deliberations, the jury returned with a verdict slip marked not guilty. (Id. ¶ 99.) However, before the verdict was read aloud, one juror stated that he did not agree with the verdict and, as a result, the judge declared a mistrial. (Id. ¶ 101.)
Ogrod was tried a second time in 1996. (Id. ¶ 108.) The only significant new evidence offered at the new trial was the testimony of Jay Wolchansky, who had been in prison with Ogrod between the first and second trials and testified that Ogrod had confessed to him that he had committed the murder. (Id. ¶¶ 120-21.) Ogrod did not testify in his own defense at the second trial. (Id. ¶ 123.) The prosecution asserted in its closing argument that Wolchansky had no deal with the Commonwealth in exchange for his testimony. (Id. ¶ 124.) The jury in the second trial convicted Ogrod of first-degree murder and attempted involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, and Ogrod was sentenced to death. (Id. ¶ 126.)
In 2005, Ogrod filed a petition seeking relief pursuant to the Post Conviction Relief Act ("PCRA"). (Id. ¶ 127.) In the PCRA proceeding, Ogrod raised claims of actual innocence, Brady/Napue violations, and ineffective assistance of counsel. (Id. ¶ 128.) In February of 2018, the case was transferred to the Conviction Integrity Unit of the District Attorney's Office (the "CIU") for review and investigation of Ogrod's actual innocence claim. (Id. ¶ 138.) In October of 2018, the CIU agreed to conduct DNA testing of all relevant and available evidence. (Id. ¶ 139.) The parties also reached an agreement for Ogrod's counsel to review the Commonwealth's files for Ogrod's case, as well as files for cases involving jailhouse informant Wolchansky. (Id. ¶ 140.)
Ultimately, the only DNA evidence that was found suitable for testing was a wash sample recovered from Barbara Jean's autopsy table, and it produced a full male DNA profile that did not match Ogrod. (Id. ¶¶ 144-47.) In addition, new experts opined that Barbara Jean's death had not been caused by a head injury, and that the injuries to Barbara Jean's head were not inflicted by the weight bar recovered from Ogrod's basement. (Id. ¶¶ 154, 157, 162, 164-65.) Defense counsel also obtained a sworn statement from John Hall, a "notorious jailhouse cooperator," who attested that he had provided Wolchansky with all of the details of Ogrod's purported confession to Wolchansky. (Id. ¶¶ 196, 203.) Although Hall is now deceased, the CIU subsequently interviewed Hall's wife and reviewed letters written by Hall to his wife, which revealed that Hall had compiled information to fabricate the substance of Ogrod's purported confession to Wolchansky. (Id. ¶¶ 197-201.)
In 2020, the District Attorney of Philadelphia joined Ogrod's petition to the Court of Common Pleas for Ogrod's release and ultimately requested that the court nolle prosse all charges. (Id. ¶ 4.) Ogrod was discharged from the custody of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections on June 5, 2020, and he was fully exonerated five days later. (Id. ¶ 10.) Ogrod then commenced the instant action against the City and the officers involved in the 1992 investigation of his case.
The Complaint contains ten Counts, the first nine of which are grounded in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Count I asserts a claim against all of the individual Defendants for malicious prosecution in violation of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Count II asserts a claim against all of the individual Defendants for deprivation of liberty without due process of law and denial of a fair trial. Count III asserts a claim against the Devlin Defendants for violation of Plaintiff's right against self-incrimination in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Count IV asserts a civil rights conspiracy claim against all of the individual Defendants. Count V asserts a claim against all of the individual Defendants for failure to intervene. Counts VI and VIII assert supervisory liability claims against Defendants Nodiff and Washlick.1 Count IX asserts a municipal liability claim against the City pursuant to Monell v. Dep't of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 98 S.Ct. 2018, 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978). Count X asserts a malicious prosecution claim against all of the individual Defendants pursuant to Pennsylvania state law.
When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), we "consider only the complaint, exhibits attached to the complaint, [and] matters of public record, as well as undisputedly authentic documents if the complainant's claims are based upon these documents." Alpizar-Fallas v. Favero, 908 F.3d 910, 914 (3d Cir. 2018) (quoting Mayer v. Belichick, 605 F.3d 223, 230 (3d Cir. 2010) ). We take the factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. DelRio-Mocci v. Connolly Props., Inc., 672 F.3d 241, 245 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen, Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir. 2011) ). Legal conclusions, however, receive no deference, as the court is "not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation." Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. 744, 755 n.5, 134 S.Ct. 2056, 188 L.Ed.2d 1039 (2014) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ).
A plaintiff's pleading obligation is to set forth "a short and plain statement of the claim," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), which gives the defendant "fair notice of what the ... claim is and the grounds upon which it rests." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, ...
To continue reading
Request your trial