Term: 2011
Docket: 10-788
Charles A. Rehberg, Petitioner v. James P. Paulk
- Pro
10-788 REHBERG V. PAULK DECISION BELOW: 611 F.3d 828 CERT. GRANTED 3/21/2011 QUESTION PRESENTED: In Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325 (1983), this Court held that law enforcement officials enjoy absolute immunity from civil liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for perjured testimony that they provide at trial. But in Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 (1986), this Court held that law enforcement officials are not entitled to absolute immunity when they act as "complaining witnesses" to initiate a criminal prosecution by submitting a legally invalid arrest warrant. The federal courts of appeals have since divided about how Briscoe and Malley apply when government officials act as "complaining witnesses" by testifying before a grand jury or at another judicial proceeding. The question presented in this case is: Whether a government official who acts as a "complaining witness" by presenting perjured testimony against an innocent citizen is entitled to absolute immunity from a Section 1983 claim for civil damages. LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 09-11897
In the case of Charles A. Rehberg v. James P. Paulk, 2011, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that government officials who act as witnesses in grand jury proceedings are entitled to absolute immunity from any civil lawsuits related to their testimony, even if they knowingly provide false information during these proceedings. The case arose when Charles A. Rehberg was indicted three times based on false testimony provided by investigator James P. Paulk and subsequently sued him for damages under federal law for violation of his constitutional rights (Fourth Amendment). However, the court held that a witness in a grand jury proceeding is not liable even if he gives perjurious testimony because such an individual has absolute immunity from subsequent liability.
In the dissenting opinion for Charles A. Rehberg v. James P. Paulk, Justice Ginsburg argued that a grand jury witness should not enjoy absolute immunity from liability for his testimony, especially when it is knowingly false or misleading. She contended that such an approach would undermine the integrity of the judicial process and could potentially lead to wrongful convictions based on perjured testimony. Furthermore, she pointed out that other participants in trial proceedings do not have absolute immunity; even judges can be held liable if they act in clear absence of all jurisdiction or engage in nonjudicial actions like malicious prosecution or defamation.
