The elected sheriff of Suffolk County is on trial in federal court in Boston, charged with extorting $50,000 from a cannabis company executive. Opening statements were Tuesday. The case is expected to run about two weeks.
Steven W. Tompkins has pleaded not guilty and denies the allegations. Nothing described below has been proven to a jury.
The charge
Tompkins faces two counts of extortion under color of official right in United States v. Tompkins, No. 1:25-cr-10334, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun is presiding. Each count carries a statutory maximum of 20 years in prison, three years of supervised release, and a $250,000 fine.
He is charged alone. There are no co-defendants.
“Under color of official right” is the legal core of the case. It describes extortion committed not through force or threats of violence but through the power of public office itself, where an official obtains something of value they are not entitled to because of the authority they hold. That framing matters, because it explains why the government told jurors this case contains no violence at all.
What prosecutors say happened
The government’s account centers on Ascend Wellness Holdings, a multistate cannabis retailer, and on Frank Perullo, a longtime Boston political operative who co-founded the company.
The alleged leverage was a re-entry partnership. The Suffolk County Sheriff’s Department had an arrangement with Ascend to train and hire formerly incarcerated people. Prosecutors say that partnership helped Ascend demonstrate community impact as it sought a Boston retail license from the Cannabis Control Commission, and that it gave Tompkins something the company needed.
The financial sequence prosecutors describe:
- November 2020: Tompkins buys a pre-IPO stake, reported as 14,417 shares at roughly $9.60 per share, about $50,000, wired from his retirement account.
- March 2021: the Cannabis Control Commission approves Ascend’s license.
- 2021: Ascend goes public and the stake peaks at roughly $138,403.
- The share price then falls below what he paid.
- 2022 to 2023: Tompkins allegedly demands and receives a full $50,000 refund, paid by Perullo across five checks.
The sentence at the center of the government’s case is one prosecutors attribute to Tompkins while pressing for that money, a reference to the address of Ascend’s Boston dispensary: “I helped you get Friend Street.” Outlets covering the opening rendered the phrasing slightly differently, so treat the exact wording as unsettled until the transcript is available.
The two openings
Assistant U.S. Attorney Dustin Chao opened for the government with a single line the Boston Globe put in its headline: “This case is about corruption.” He told jurors there was no violence and no naked threats, describing instead what he called subtle but ominous pressure.
Martin G. Weinberg opened for the defense, and went straight at the government’s proof. What the government has, he said, is “an accusation, not evidence.” The case, he argued, comes down to the uncorroborated testimony of one man who received immunity in what Weinberg called a cynical exchange.
His substantive defense has four parts: Tompkins had no actual authority over cannabis licensing, so there was no official power to abuse; Perullo had no reasonable fear of economic harm; the stock purchase was a business transaction at full market value between longtime friends; and Perullo later urged people to vote for Tompkins. Weinberg’s line on that last point: “Friends or extortion victims don’t urge people to vote for someone who did something wrong to them.”
He called his client innocent.
Weinberg is among the most experienced federal defense lawyers in Massachusetts and also handled Karen Read’s appeal, a detail worth noting given how often the two cases now share the same courthouse press corps.
The immunity problem
Perullo is the government’s central witness, and he is testifying under an immunity agreement. That is the fault line of the trial.
Cases built on a single cooperating witness live or die on corroboration, which is why both sides spent their openings on it. Prosecutors have pointed to a text message in which Tompkins asks to withdraw his funds after the stock lost value. The defense will argue that a request to unwind a losing investment between friends is exactly what it looks like.
The first government witness was Abner Kurtin, an Ascend co-founder, who testified about the company’s IPO and, according to GBH, said he never heard any threats from Tompkins and had no knowledge of the sheriff’s investment. His testimony continued Wednesday.
One name has come up repeatedly: Andrea Cabral, who was Suffolk County sheriff before Tompkins, who was his boss, and who now runs Ascend’s Massachusetts operations. Both sides referenced her during opening statements, and Weinberg built much of his opening around a friendship of more than forty years, arguing Tompkins would never have harmed a company Cabral was running. Whether she actually appears as a witness was unclear for most of the trial, and we said so. That has now been resolved: WBUR reported on August 28 that the defense is expected to call several witnesses, including Cabral.
Where the government’s case stands
The Commonwealth of the federal system moves in order, and after four trial days the order is telling.
Prosecutors have called a series of Ascend Wellness witnesses, and the reported substance of that testimony has not helped them build the pressure they described in opening.
Abner Kurtin, an Ascend co-founder, testified Tuesday and continued Wednesday. On cross, Weinberg asked whether Frank Perullo had ever mentioned feeling pressured by Tompkins or feared the company’s license was in jeopardy. Kurtin said he never discussed it. He also said he never heard any threats.
A former Ascend employee testified Wednesday about the hiring partnership with the sheriff’s department, and said it was never suggested that the company’s cannabis license depended on the sheriff’s goodwill.
On Thursday, Ascend’s social equity chief testified that she faced no pressure to preserve the partnership that prosecutors have described as the leverage in this case.
Three witnesses from inside the company, and none of them has described the fear that extortion under color of official right requires.
Why that may matter less than it sounds
A word of caution before anyone reads a verdict into it.
The government’s case rests on Frank Perullo, and he has not taken the stand. He is the person prosecutors say was pressured, he is testifying under an immunity agreement, and the entire theory of the case runs through what he says happened between him and Tompkins. Other executives testifying that they felt no pressure is not the same as the alleged victim saying he felt none. Perullo may well testify that he did not tell his colleagues, which is a common enough feature of these cases.
What the testimony does accomplish is set up Weinberg’s closing. If the jury hears from three people at the company that the license was never in danger and nobody was leaning on anyone, then the case really does come down to one man’s uncorroborated account, which is exactly how the defense framed it in opening.
The reported evidence so far also has not included the five checks, the text message about withdrawing funds, or the partnership agreement itself. Those may still be coming.
What has not happened
The government has not rested. There is no reported Rule 29 motion, no closing argument date, and no indication whether Tompkins will testify in his own defense. The trial was expected to run about two weeks from August 24, which points toward closings sometime in the week of August 31.
One clarification on exposure, since it is often reported loosely: the two counts carry up to twenty years each, so the theoretical maximum is forty years, along with fines that can reach $500,000. He was released on $200,000 bail at arraignment and has remained free.
He is still the sheriff
A point some coverage has gotten wrong: Tompkins has not resigned and is not a former sheriff. He remains the elected sheriff of Suffolk County, with a term running to 2028.
He stepped away from his duties on unpaid leave in August 2025, after Governor Maura Healey and Attorney General Andrea Campbell asked him to, with his attorney citing a doctor’s recommendation and a serious medical issue. Special Sheriff Mark Lawhorne has been running the department since.
That distinction is not a technicality. Under Massachusetts law the governor cannot remove an elected sheriff, and a conviction alone does not empty the office. We explain what actually would in what happens to the office if Tompkins is convicted.
Common questions
What is Sheriff Tompkins charged with?
Two counts of extortion under color of official right, in federal court in Boston. Each count carries a maximum of 20 years. He has pleaded not guilty.
What is he accused of doing?
Prosecutors allege he used the sheriff department’s re-entry partnership with a cannabis company as leverage to obtain a $50,000 refund on a stock investment that had lost value. The defense says it was an ordinary investment between friends and that he had no authority over cannabis licensing.
Is Steven Tompkins still the sheriff?
Yes. He has been on unpaid leave since August 2025 but has not resigned. Special Sheriff Mark Lawhorne is running the department.
How long will the trial last?
About two weeks, with proceedings scheduled through early September 2026.
Who is the judge?
U.S. District Judge Myong J. Joun, in the District of Massachusetts.
Tompkins is presumed innocent. Allegations described here are the government’s contentions and have not been proven. Reporting current as of August 26, 2026.