Federal judge rejects Sheriff Steven Tompkins' efforts to dismiss extortion charges

A federal judge in Boston rejected Suffolk County Sheriff Steven Tompkins’ effort to dismiss charges that he extorted a cannabis company.

The ruling from Judge Myong Joun is a setback for the longtime Democrat, who pleaded not guilty last year to allegations that he pressured an executive for stock in a cannabis company before a public offering and then demanded his money back when the stock tanked.

In a 16-page ruling handed down Tuesday, Joun said he denied Tompkins’ attempt to dismiss his case because there is enough evidence to support federal prosecutors’ allegations, including that the sheriff engaged in quid pro quo.

“The quid pro quo may not be as explicitly spelled out as to Defendant’s liking, but the hallmark of something-for-something is sufficiently alleged," Joun wrote in his ruling, citing the sheriff receiving "$50,000 pre-IPO interest in Company A stock and Company A received Tompkins’ official support to renew its annual business license."

In a statement to WBUR, Tompkins' attorney, Martin Weinberg, said the sheriff “intends to prove to a jury that he is innocent of the pending charge and has asked for the earliest date for his trial.”

Tompkins is on leave from the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, but still holds the elected position. He set up a fund in December to accept political donations to pay for his legal defense, but did not report any contributions as of the end of January, state records show.

Prosecutors allege that Tompkins pushed a cannabis executive in Boston to let him buy shares in a cannabis business in exchange for a “partnership” with the sheriff’s department to hire people reentering the workforce after jail time.

The “partnership” was a key component of the company securing its cannabis license, prosecutors have said.

The executive at first declined to sell Tompkins stock in the company, but later agreed to do so because he “feared” Tompkins would use his role as sheriff to jeopardize the company’s jobs partnership with the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department, according to court documents.

From late 2021 to the beginning of 2022, Tompkins was in the middle of his reelection campaign when he started asking for his money back, prosecutors said.

The executive, “fearing that Tompkins could use his official authority as sheriff to jeopardize Company A’s license renewals if Individual A did not agree to give the full $50,000 payment back, agreed,” court documents said.

Weinberg previously argued that the charges against the sheriff were “predicated upon a number of factual infirmities.”

But Joun said prosecutors laid out enough evidence to let the case move forward.

“Moreover, weighing factual strength is not proper on a motion to dismiss; that is the quintessential inquiry for the jury,” the judge wrote in his ruling.

A trial is now scheduled to begin on Aug. 24.

Weinberg had sought to classify the agreement between Tompkins and the cannabis executive as an “everyday business transaction.” Joun said Tompkins could make that argument to a jury.

“It is not my role at this stage to accept that characterization over the Government’s allegations. Tompkins’ ‘reminder’ that the Company will need his support can be inferred to be a condition on the company selling the stocks to him,” Joun said. “The facts as alleged are sufficient to support a quid pro quo.”

Weinberg also sought to toss out the case against Tompkins by arguing that the partnership between the Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department and the cannabis company was not an “official act” that could support a federal extortion prosecution.

At the same time, Weinberg said there was not enough evidence to support a claim that Tompkins extorted the cannabis company by fear of economic loss.

Joun rejected both arguments, as well as defense motions to suppress evidence the federal government seized from Tompkins’ email accounts and to strike language in the indictment against him that outlines past violations of state ethics laws.