Lewis Fogle v. John Sokol
957 F.3d 148
| 3rd Cir. | 2020Background
- 1976: Deann “Kathy” Long was raped and murdered in Indiana County, PA; investigation involved Indiana County prosecutors Gregory Olson and William Martin and Pennsylvania State Police troopers.
- The key witness, Earl Elderkin, gave inconsistent accounts; Olson arranged a hypnosis session (by an untrained hypnotist) after which Elderkin implicated Lewis and Dennis Fogle.
- Police allegedly coerced or suggested testimony from Kathy’s sister, Dennis Fogle (who later confessed), and multiple jailhouse informants; prosecutors are accused of encouraging or permitting those tactics and concealing their role.
- Lewis Fogle was convicted of second-degree murder, served decades, and later had his conviction vacated when DNA excluded him and his brother; Commonwealth declined to re-prosecute.
- Fogle sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging fabrication and suppression of evidence, conspiracy, and failure to intervene; the district court denied Olson and Martin’s motion to dismiss on absolute-immunity grounds and sustained Monell-based allegations against Indiana County.
- On appeal the Third Circuit affirmed denial of absolute immunity for certain investigative acts but held it lacked jurisdiction to hear Indiana County’s interlocutory appeal of municipal liability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Olson and Martin are absolutely immune for procuring Elderkin’s post-hypnosis statements | Fogle: procuring and directing hypnosis was investigative and outside absolute immunity | Olson/Martin: prosecutorial role after arrest/when case formed confers absolute immunity | Court: arranging/using hypnosis was investigative conduct; no absolute immunity at dismissal stage |
| Whether prosecutors are absolutely immune for obtaining/coaching jailhouse informant statements and Dennis Fogle’s confession | Fogle: soliciting/coaching false informant confessions and concealing coercion are investigative acts | Olson/Martin: post-charge timing and participation in prosecution warrant absolute immunity | Court: function, not timing, controls; allegations describe investigative roles so immunity denied at this stage |
| Whether withholding impeachment/exculpatory evidence and courtroom misrepresentations are protected by absolute immunity | Fogle: prosecutors committed Brady violations and misrepresentations but those acts are part of advocacy? | Olson/Martin: actions in court and preparing/presenting prosecution are prosecutorial and absolutely immune | Court: acts intimately associated with judicial phase (charging, presenting, withholding evidence, court misrepresentations) receive absolute immunity |
| Whether Indiana County may appeal denial of Monell claim via interlocutory appeal based on absolute-immunity theory | Fogle: County’s liability stems from official policymaking and custom; County cannot assert officers’ absolute immunity to avoid interlocutory review | Indiana County: challenges district court’s Monell finding and seeks interlocutory review | Court: municipalities cannot assert absolute-immunity defense; collateral-order interlocutory review not available to County, appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutors performing advocative, judicial-phase functions)
- Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478 (1991) (no absolute immunity for prosecutorial advice in investigative phase)
- Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993) (functional test: focus on nature of the function, not title)
- Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118 (1997) (limits on prosecutorial immunity where prosecutor performs non-advocative tasks)
- Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335 (2009) (absolute immunity for certain supervisory/trial-related prosecutorial conduct)
- Yarris v. County of Delaware, 465 F.3d 129 (3d Cir. 2006) (interlocutory review of district court denials of absolute immunity to the extent they turn on legal issues)
- Odd v. Malone, 538 F.3d 202 (3d Cir. 2008) (caution against bright-line timing rules; fact-specific immunity analysis)
- Schneyder v. Smith, 653 F.3d 313 (3d Cir. 2011) (two-step framework: identify challenged conduct and determine the function served)
- Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U.S. 622 (1980) (municipality cannot assert officers’ good faith as defense to Monell liability)
- Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511 (1985) (collateral order doctrine permits interlocutory appeal of certain immunity denials)