High court rules witness isn’t liable for false grand jury testimony

Listen to this article

A government investigator was entitled to absolute immunity from liability for allegedly providing false testimony to a grand jury, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a unanimous decision.

The decision affirms a ruling from the 11th Circuit.

The plaintiff was indicted three times in Georgia for assault and making harassing telephone calls. The complaining witness in each case was the defendant, a chief investigator for a local district attorney’s office. The plaintiff succeeded in having all three indictments dismissed.

The plaintiff subsequently sued under §1983, alleging that the defendant conspired to present and did present false testimony to the grand jury.

The defendant argued that a witness in a grand jury proceeding is entitled to the same absolute immunity afforded trial witnesses sued under §1983. (See “Is official who lied to grand jury immune from liability?” Lawyers USA, Nov. 2, 2011.)

The Court agreed, explaining the “factors that justify absolute immunity for trial witnesses apply with equal force to grand jury witnesses. In both contexts, a witness’ fear of retaliatory litigation may deprive the tribunal of critical evidence. And in neither context is the deterrent of potential civil liability needed to prevent perjurious testimony. … Since perjury before a grand jury, like perjury at trial, is a serious criminal offense, there is no reason to think that this deterrent is any less effective in preventing false grand jury testimony.”

Moreover, the Court concluded that there was no reason to distinguish law enforce­ment witnesses from lay witnesses in this regard.

Justice Samuel Alito Jr. wrote the opinion of the Court.

U.S. Supreme Court. Rehberg v. Paulk, No. 10-788.