Defamation suit against N.Y. prosecutor can proceed

A federal court of appeals has ruled that a defamation lawsuit against a New York assistant district attorney can go forward.

In 2008, a victim of domestic abuse accused former Fulton County Assistant District Attorney Matthew Trainor of defaming her when he told The Leader Herald in May 2007 that she was "hiding out" in order to avoid testifying against her ex-boyfriend. Trainor has maintained that his comment was only his opinion and that his opinion was supported by evidence. The plaintiff, Stephanie Flagler, said Trainor's statement was untrue and that she always intended to testify.

The court of appeals ruled last week that Trainor's statements to the newspaper can form the basis of a defamation claim, declining to give Trainor prosecutorial immunity, primarily because the comments were not made in court proceedings or pleadings.

“They can defame in an affidavit to the court, but they can’t defame to the general public," said the plaintiff's attorney, Lawrence W. Golden.

Judge Richard C. Wesley, of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New York (2nd Circuit), wrote that, "while statements to the press may be an 'integral part' of the prosecutor’s job, the duty is no different than that for other executives who deal with the press and enjoy only qualified immunity."

The court expressed no opinion as to whether Trainor's statement actually was defamatory, but held simply that the lawsuit could go forward.

Overturning the trial court, the court of appeals held that Trainor's statements to the newspaper were not "intimately associated" with prosecuting crime, and therefore fell outside the absolute immunity from liability granted to prosecutors for many of their official acts. Absolute immunity protects prosecutors from liability for certain actions that are integral to prosecuting crime.

Absolute immunity extends only to those prosecutorial functions "intimately associated with initiating or presenting the State's case," the court wrote. Because speaking to a newspaper is not intimately associated with prosecuting crime, Trainor was not entitled to immunity on that claim, the court ruled. By contrast, even if Trainor made any false statements in securing the material witness order for Flagler -- an issue the parties disagree on -- he is nonetheless immune because that function is intimately related to prosecuting crime.

Flagler was set to testify against her ex-boyfriend Brandon Becker in a criminal trial for domestic abuse. Trainor, after several failed attempts to make contact with Flagler, was concerned that Becker was pressuring her not to testify, according to Thomas K. Murphy, Trainor's attorney. Specifically, Murphy said that on at least one occasion Flagler had failed to identify herself to an investigator seeking to serve her with a subpoena. Flagler said that she never received a subpoena to testify.

About one week before the trial, Trainor became concerned that Flagler was wavering in her decision to testify. He sought and obtained a material witness order from New York state court. Under New York law, if there is reasonable cause to believe that a witness with information material to a criminal trial will refuse to testify, they can be detained and brought before a judge, who can then require the witness to post bail to ensure their testimony. Flagler was detained and held overnight before posting bail and being released.

At the domestic abuse trial, Flagler testified, and Becker was convicted.

After the trial, Flagler filed a lawsuit with a number of complaints against Trainer including false statement in order to obtain the warrant, invasion of privacy for accessing her cell phone without her consent, and failure to return her cell phone after the criminal trial.

The court of appeals reinstated the invasion of privacy and retention of evidence claims, and remanded the case to the district court, where it will proceed.