Important rulings by the judge in the Wilmington crime lab trial are still pending

Benjamin Schachtman: OK, so we're talking about the complicated civil case brought by Bethany Pridgen, who ran the Wilmington Crime Lab for ten years. We can't give all the details here, but Aaleah, you're in the loop, give us some broad strokes.

Aaleah McConnell: The case dates back to 2019, when a crime lab chemist was fired. We were told publicly that the chemist made some clerical errors, and the crime lab was then transferred from the city to the sheriff's office. Pridgen assumed that under the new arrangement, she would keep her job – but she didn't.

BS: Correct, and she claims that she was essentially pushed out of the case because of her testimony about the fired chemist.

AM: That's right. Pridgen testified in a drug trial in place of the chemist – during her testimony, the defense attorney asked her if she had any concerns about the chemist's work. Pridgen, under oath, said there had been concerns about missing medication.

BS: And that was something that not was discussed publicly by the police or the public prosecutor.

AM: No, it wasn't. Pridgen claims that after she gave her testimony, she became a pariah among local officials, including District Attorney Ben David, Sheriff Ed McMahon, and Donny Williams, who later became police chief. There are many contexts to this, but basically she claims that because of her truthful testimony, she effectively lost her job as head of the crime lab at the sheriff's office.

BS: OK, this case has been going on for over two years now – there have been a number of allegations of gender discrimination in the police force and a lot of back and forth as the prosecutor, sheriff and police have all asked for the case to be dismissed. Ben David was actually excused from the case – only to be brought back on the case based on new evidence. That was a decision made by Judge Allen Cobb last year. So it's been a lot. But now let's get to the nitty gritty – what happened this week?

AM: There were several items on the agenda at Wednesday's hearing. The first was that Pridgen's lawyers wanted to impose sanctions against Ben David.

BS: Right – and I have not seen this very often, especially since it is rare for the DA to be defendantbut in this case the plaintiff argues that he failed to produce evidence during the disclosure process?

AM: That's true. Ben David's lawyers were quite combative, claiming that he did not need to provide evidence because the question of whether he should even be part of the case had not yet been decided.

They argue that as district attorney he has immunity from the government. The defense obviously disagrees with that. They argue that Ben David interfered in the hiring process. outside of the prosecution is essentially claiming that he helped ruin Pridgen's reputation and dissuaded the sheriff from hiring her, so they're suing him in his personal capacity.

BS: Got it. So how did Judge Hoyt Tessener, who presided over this hearing, handle this?

AM: Judge Tessener seemed to wag his finger a little at David's attorney for arguing against Judge Cobb's conclusion. He said they were basically asking him to overturn Cobb's decision. However, the prosecutor's defense argued that Cobb's decision should be viewed as an advisory opinion rather than a legal conclusion. Their reasoning was that Cobb ruled on findings that were not necessary to the case.

BS: OK, then there's the bigger question of whether the judge will dismiss the case, rule immediately – a summary judgment – or let the matter go to trial. How did that turn out?

AM: After hearing arguments from both sides, Judge Tessener denied both the motion to continue the trial, which would have been set for September 9, and the motion to punish Ben David. The judge said he would consider the results of the hearing and make a decision by next Friday.

BS: So there are several possible outcomes, right? The case could be dismissed in principle, it could go to trial – and the question of whether Ben David will be included as a defendant in the trial is still uncertain. So the verdict will have consequences.

AM: I think so, yes.

BS: OK, we'll stay tuned and see what happens next – Aaleah, thanks for covering that for us.

AM: I'm pleased.