http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-788.pdf
This has nothing to do with the man being a government employee. The issue here was could the guy be PRIVATELY sued for his testimony to the grand jury under a particular federal statute? As at trial, any called witness testifying to a grand jury has immunity for that testimony.
Of course, if that testimony is false then you've committed perjury, which is a serious felony. Rehberg's suit tried to evade earlier standards of immunity by suing over conspiracy (not just the testimony, but the entire scheme) and using the "complaining witness" distinction which existed in US law in 1871, which is relevant because that's when the particular statute he sued under was passed.
The decision was unanimous.
This case requires us to decide whether a “complaining witness” in a grand jury proceeding is entitled to the same immunity in an action under 42 U. S. C. §1983 as a witness who testifies at trial. We see no sound reason to draw a distinction for this purpose between grand juryand trial witnesses.
...
Section 1983, which derives from §1 of the Civil RightsAct of 1871, 17 Stat. 13, creates a private right of action to vindicate violations of “rights, privileges, or immunitiessecured by the Constitution and laws” of the UnitedStates. Under the terms of the statute, “‘[e]very person’ who acts under color of state law to deprive another of a constitutional right [is] answerable to that person in a suit for damages.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 417 (1976) (citing 42 U. S. C. §1983).
...
The factors that justify absolute immunity for trialwitnesses apply with equal force to grand jury witnesses.In both contexts, a witness’ fear of retaliatory litigationmay deprive the tribunal of critical evidence. And in neither context is the deterrent of potential civil liability needed to prevent perjurious testimony. In Briscoe, the Court concluded that the possibility of civil liability wasnot needed to deter false testimony at trial because othersanctions—chiefly prosecution for perjury—provided a sufficient deterrent. Id., at 342. Since perjury before agrand jury, like perjury at trial, is a serious criminaloffense, see, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §1623(a), there is no reason to think that this deterrent is any less effective in preventing false grand jury testimony.
The exemption from any civil suit resulting from witness statements made during grand jury proceedings was held by the whole court to be so very important that public policy demands it be absolute.
There is no question as to the extreme nature of Paulk's conduct, although he certainly wasn't the worst one.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2012/04/02/45237.htm
http://www.albanyherald.com/news/2011/oct/30/supreme-court-to-hear-rehberg-case/
They basically trumped up a case against Rehberg and indicted him three times on false grounds. James Paulk was the chief investigator. Really bad conduct.
http://fantasyscotus.org/cases/rehberg-v-paulk/lesson-plan/
From September 2003 to March 2004, Petitioner Charles Rehberg sent anonymous faxes to the management of Phoebe Putney Memorial Hospital in Albany, Georgia that criticized the way the hospital was conducting its business. Rehberg alleged that the hospital was being financially dishonest. Respondent Ken Hodges, who was the District Attorney of Dougherty County, Georgia, allegedly had political ties to the hospital management and agreed to investigate the anonymous faxes as a favor. He and Respondent James Paulk, the District Attorney’s Chief Investigator, believed that Rehberg was responsible for the faxes, so they created several fake, but official-looking subpoenas (orders, often made by a grand jury, which require the recipient to produce specified documents) for Rehberg’s phone records and gave them to his telephone companies. Hodges and Paulk also created a similar fake subpoena to obtain electronic data from Rehberg’s e-mail provider. The subpoenas claimed that a grand jury (a body of citizens which is tasked with determining, before trial and without the defendant present, whether there is enough evidence to charge an individual with a crime) had been assembled and was requesting the documents, even though no such grand jury actually existed at the time.
On December 14, 2005, the District Attorney produced enough evidence for the grand jury to charge Rehberg with assault, burglary, and harassment. Rehberg was arrested as a result. Respondent Paulk, the only witness to the grand jury, testified that Rehberg had broken into Dr. James Hotz’s house and assaulted him, although there was no evidence to support the truth of these statements. Paul lied. Later, Paulk admitted that he never interviewed any witnesses or collected evidence that Rehberg had committed the crimes, and that his testimony to the grand jury was false. After Rehberg challenged the evidence supporting his indictment, the Prosecutor dismissed the case.
Over the next year, Rehberg was indicted by a grand jury for assault and harassment two more times, each using the false testimony of Respondent Paulk. Both the second and third indictments were dismissed by the state trial court for lack of evidence.
In a case like this - rural county, cohesive law enforcement - it doesn't leave whistleblowers many options unless they can get the state to intervene. This was an extreme violation of Rehberg's civil rights.
But if the suit were allowed to go forward, consider what might happen if Rehberg had been testifying to the grand jury over what he alleged about the hospital's billing practices, presuming he had managed to find someone to instigate a legal case! The hospital would still have the same pull and law enforcement (at least the prosecutor's office) in its pocket, and Rehberg could have been legally called to testify and then harassed endlessly with civil lawsuits with even less protection, because the standard of proof there is less than in criminal cases. Rehberg himself would fit the definition of a complaining witness.
So the SC is probably right. This is a bad case that they made good law, but the whole thing still stinks to high heaven, and nothing can ever make it look any better.
= new reply since forum marked as read
