Flagler v. Trainor
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 23254
| 2d Cir. | 2011Background
- Flagler was a domestic violence victim who testified as a complainant in Becker's pending trial.
- Trainor sought a material witness order and arrest warrant to compel Flagler's attendance, alleging she would not respond to subpoenas.
- Flagler was arrested and held for a material witness hearing; Trainor allegedly did not notify her about the trial or subpoena her.
- Flagler's cell phone was confiscated; Flagler claims the Sheriff's Department gave it to Trainor and someone in the DA's office accessed voicemail.
- Flagler alleged Trainor defamed her to the press and pressured Becker's ex-wife to record calls with Flagler without consent.
- The district court dismissed federal claims on absolute prosecutorial immunity; state claims lacking federal counterpart were not reached.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Trainor is absolutely immune for false statements in support of a material witness order | Flagler asserts immunity does not apply because he acted as a witness, not an advocate. | Trainor contends the act is within advocacy and intimately tied to presenting the State's case. | Yes, immune for this act |
| Whether Trainor's defamatory statements to the press are protected by absolute immunity | Flagler argues statements to the media are not immune and cause defamation. | Trainor seeks absolute immunity for all prosecutorial acts in presenting the case. | Not immune; defamation claims may proceed |
| Whether Trainor's alleged accessing of Flagler's voicemail and pressuring Becker's ex-wife to record calls falls under absolute immunity | Flagler alleges investigatory, non-advocacy conduct outside prosecutorial discretion. | Trainor contends acts were part of prosecutorial advocacy. | Not immune; acts are investigatory. |
| Whether Trainor's withholding/preserving of evidence after Becker's conviction is covered by absolute immunity | Flagler argues ongoing duty to reveal exculpatory or preserving evidence post-conviction. | Trainor argues preservation relates to presenting the State's case and appeals. | Remanded to determine immunity duration; not decided here |
| Whether the district court should address absolute immunity for continuing to withhold Flagler's cell phone | Flagler seeks a ruling on immunity for ongoing withholding of evidence. | Trainor's immunity status for preservation is unsettled and requires briefing. | Remand for district court to consider immunity on this issue |
Key Cases Cited
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (Supreme Court 1997) (distinguishes sworn attestations from advocacy; immunity abides for advocacy portion)
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (Supreme Court 1976) (establishes prosecutorial immunity for acts intimately tied to prosecutorial functions)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (Supreme Court 1993) (media statements not entitled to absolute immunity)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (Supreme Court 1991) (immunity tied to advocacy and discretion; separate administrative acts may not be immune)
- Betts v. Richard, 726 F.2d 79 (2d Cir. 1984) (prosecutor obtaining writ of capias immune under absolute immunity framework)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (Supreme Court 1997) (presented above; included for emphasis on attestations vs. advocacy)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (Supreme Court 2009) (recognizes limits of prosecutorial immunity for investigatory acts)
- Parkinson v. Cozzolino, 238 F.3d 145 (2d Cir. 2001) (immunity extended to withholding/preserving evidence in certain contexts)
- Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2008) (administrative tasks vs. advocacy distinction clarified for material witness context)
- Cruz v. Kauai County, 279 F.3d 1064 (9th Cir. 2002) (prosecutor's conduct as a complaining witness not immune; noted as context)