Issue: 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
Happened According to Supreme Court weighs whether victim of false
grand jury testimony can sue for damages the supreme The justices heard
arguments in an appeal from Charles Rehberg, an accountant who was indicted
three times involving charges that he harassed doctors affiliated with a south Georgia
hospital system. After the third outcome was rejected before the trial, Rehburg
took legal action against the prosecutors and their investigator James Paulk.
Rehberg made a case that he was influenced under investigation because of the
hospital’s supporting relationship and that Paulk’s false grand jury statement
directed to the accusation.
Paulk’s dispute that the grand jury is part of the judicial method, and
that evidence should give equal rights within the trial. The argument came
about in 2003. The search ultimately came back Rehberg. Rehberg states that Dougherty County
District Attorney was part of a search that was trying to set up Rehberg to
make him guilty for committing the crimes. In the end The search ultimately came back that lead Rehberg. The court would be in favor of presenting perjuired testimoney because it can eventually lead back to the person who committed the crimes.
Personal belief: I feel that That if you have Perjuried testimony against an innocent citizen it can eventually lead back to the person who committed the crime.