Benjamin Schachtman: Alright, so we’re talking about the complicated civil case, filed by Bethany Pridgen, who ran the Wilmington Crime Lab for a decade. We can’t recap all the details here, but Aaleah, you’ve been getting up to speed on this, give us some of the broad strokes.
Aaleah McConnell: Well, the case dates back to 2019, when a crime lab chemist was fired. Publicly, we were told the chemist made some clerical errors, and afterward, the crime lab was transferred from the city to the Sheriff’s Office. Pridgen assumed she would keep her job under the new arrangement – but she didn’t.
BS: Right, and she alleges that she was essentially pushed out of the process because of testimony she gave regarding the fired chemist.
AM: That’s right. Pridgen testified in place of the chemist during a drug case — during her testimony, the defense attorney asked her if she had concerns about the chemist’s work. Pridgen, who was under oath, said there had been concerns about missing drugs.
BS: And that was something that hadn’t been discussed publicly by the police department or the District Attorney’s office.
AM: No, it hadn’t. Pridgen alleges that after she gave this testimony, she became a pariah with local officials — including District Attorney Ben David, Sheriff Ed McMahon, and Donny Williams, who would later become police chief. There’s a lot of context to this, but basically, she claims that because of her truthful testimony, she effectively lost the crime lab director position under the Sheriff’s Office.
BS: Ok, so this case has been going for over two years — there’s been a host of allegations about gender bias at the police department, and multiple back-and-forths as the DA, Sheriff, and police have asked the case to be thrown out. Ben David was actually excused from the case — only to be added back in based on new evidence, that was a decision made last year by Judge Allen Cobb. So, it’s been a lot. But now we’re kinda of getting down to brass tacks – what happened this week?
AM: So, there were a few issues on the docket during the hearing on Wednesday. The first was Pridgen’s lawyers wanted to sanction Ben David.
BS: Right - and I haven’t seen this very often, especially since it’s rare to see the DA as a defendant, but in this case the plaintiff is arguing that he’s failed to provide evidence in the discovery process?
AM: That’s right. Attorneys for Ben David were pretty feisty, they claim that there’s no need for him to provide evidence since the issue of whether or not he should even be part of the case hasn’t been decided yet.
They argue that because he’s the DA, he has governmental immunity. The defense obviously doesn’t agree with that, they argue that Ben David interferred with the hiring process outside of the DA’s office, basically claiming he helped ruin Pridgen’s reputation and swayed the Sheriff’s against hiring her. So they’re suing him him in his individual capacity.
BS: Gotcha. So how did Judge Hoyt Tessener, who presided over this hearing, handle that?
AM: Judge Tessener seemed to wag his finger a bit at David's attorney for arguing against Judge Cobb’s conclusion, he said they were essentially asking him to overrule Cobb’s decision. But the DA’s defense argued that Cobb’s decision should be considered an advisory opinion rather than a conclusion of law. Their reason being, Cobb ruled on findings that were not necessary to the case.
BS: Ok, so then there’s the larger issue of whether the judge throws the case out, rules on the spot — a summary judgment — or lets this go to trial. How did that shake out?
AM: So after hearing arguments from each side, Judge Tessener denied both the motion to continue the trial, that would have been set for September 9, and the motion to sanction Ben David. The judge said he would take the findings of the hearing under advisement and would have a ruling by next friday.
BS: So, we could see a number of outcomes, right? The case could basically be thrown out, we could see it move forward to a trial — and the issue of Ben David’s inclusion as a defendant is still up in the air. So the ruling will be consequential.
AM: I think so, yes.
BS: OK, well, we’ll be following to see what is next — Aaleah, thanks for covering this for us.
AM: My pleasure.
