WILMINGTON — The wrongful termination and civil conspiracy case filed against local law enforcement and the district attorney by the former crime lab director was in court again on Thursday, though not for a final decision.
READ MORE: Attorney for former lab director argues ‘civil conspiracy’ in suit against WPD, NHCSO, DA
Representing the district attorney, Chris Carreiro argued the November order re-adding District Attorney Ben David as a defendant should be vacated because of a host of procedural issues and the belief that Judge W. Allen Cobb Jr. — overseeing Thursday’s hearing — should have recused himself.
Cobb denied the order; he will continue to oversee the case and the DA will continue to be a part of it.
The case revolves around Bethany Pridgen MacGillivray, who goes by Pridgen. The former forensics chemist was hired by the Wilmington Police Department in 2008 but not rehired when the crime lab was transferred to the New Hanover County Sheriff’s Office four years ago.
Pridgen claims she was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for testimony she gave in a WPD internal affairs investigation against former crime lab employee William Peltzer for missing and mishandling drug evidence. Peltzer started his position in 2015, a move supported by the DA, and was fired in January 2019.
According to Pridgen’s attorney, Luke Largess, WPD, NHCSO and the DA wanted to keep the public from knowing about her testimony because it would unveil Peltzer’s 101 cases that were falsified and thus jeopardize hundreds of drug convictions.
Pridgen also claims she was discriminated against for her gender, as a male was hired to run the new crime lab, and that the defendants actions constitute conspiracy — “several people working together to accomplish a wrong.”
The district attorney was dropped from the case last year, only for Cobb to add him back in November. Pridgen’s team discovered additional implicating information they thought was enough to bring David back into the fold, including the DA’s criticism of Pridgen’s testimony.
Evidence showed David met with WPD about the future of the lab, without Pridgen present, though the results would directly impact her employment. A press release sent to the media about the transfer of the lab stated David fully supported the move.
Ultimately, there were two plaintiff motions on the table in November; one for Cobb to reconsider his decision excluding David from the case and another to add David back into the proceedings.
On Thursday, Carreiro argued Cobb should not have ruled on the amendment because the understanding was that Cobb had recused himself from the matter due to a conflict of interest. She said a court manager had communicated this to her.
“Are you OK with arguing that you spoke with a court manager and she or he had the authority to speak for the presiding judge? Is that what you’re saying?” Cobb asked. “That’s going to start a dangerous precedent in this state if that’s what you believe.”
Carreiro said all the attorneys general, including herself, were under the impression that Cobb had recused himself from hearing anything in Pridgen’s case, except any motion on the original order dismissing the charges against David because he gave the order.
Cobb said the amendment and reconsideration were concurrent and questioned if Carreiro thought it made “logical sense” that he rule on one and not the other. She said yes.
Carreiro also argued the defense was not given proper notice to hear the request to amend the proceedings and add David. This was because of the perceived recusal, she said, and because the defense did not provide her notice of the request less than five days before the Nov. 8 hearing, as required.
Carreiro said she raised these concerns at the Nov. 6 hearing, saying she was not ready to make arguments on the DA addition, but proceeded to do so anyway.
“I did not jump up and down,” Carreiro said. “I didn’t say it multiple times. But I said it once and I know your honor hears people when they speak.”
The judge pointed out Carreiro still forged ahead, questioning claims that she was not aware of the request.
“You made a determination not to prepare and not to argue the motion to amend because you thought, based on a court manager 2’s representation, that the motion to amend the complaint was not going to be argued. So you didn’t prepare for it?” Cobb asked.
Carreiro said she hadn’t because she was operating under the understanding the amendment would not be heard on Nov. 8 and the request was not sent on time, which would have resulted in her working over the weekend.
Largess claimed the transcript of the hearing shows Carreiro made no such protestations and stated the defense waived its right of timely notice by arguing on the matter in court.
“I think if you look at the transcript they came, they argued the merits without arguing, in the transcript or in their brief, they hadn’t received adequate notice,” Largess said.
Largess disputed the late notice claim as well, pointing to an email where his team put the district attorney on notice two months in advance.
Ultimately, Cobb ruled in favor of the plaintiff.
The next hearing in the case has not been scheduled.
CATCH UP ON PREVIOUS COVERAGE:
Attorney for former lab director argues ‘civil conspiracy’ in suit against WPD, NHCSO, DA
Former crime lab director ordered mediation in lawsuit against law enforcement, DA
NHCSO took over WPD crime lab, increased staff and funding, but hasn’t tested any drugs. Here’s why.
Tips or comments? Email info@localdailymedia.com.
Want to read more from PCD? Subscribe now and then sign up for our morning newsletter, Wilmington Wire, and get the headlines delivered to your inbox every morning.
