STF na Mídia - MyClipp

Reuters General/ - Article, Seg, 02 de Abril de 2012
CLIPPING INTERNACIONAL (Supreme Court)
Supreme court: immunity for witness
grand jury testimony
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON | Mon Apr 2, 2012 11:37am EDT
(Reuters) - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that
a government investigator who initiates a criminal case
against a private individual and later lies to a grand
jury still has immunity from a civil lawsuit over his
testimony.
The high court justices unanimously handed a defeat
to a Georgia accountant who wanted to proceed with
his lawsuit seeking damages from a government
official who was the chief investigator for a local
prosecutor.
The accountant, Charles Rehberg, had engaged in an
anonymous "whistleblowing" campaign about unethical
billing practices at a hospital in Albany, Georgia.
Investigator James Paulk of the Dougherty County
District Attorney's office falsely testified to a grand jury
that the accountant had harassed doctors.
Paulk, who started the investigation as a favor to
hospital officials, later admitted he had no evidence
and had not talked to any witnesses. The charges
against Rehberg were dismissed.
Rehberg then sued, but Paulk argued he was
protected by immunity, and a U.S. appeals court based
in Atlanta agreed with Paulk.
The Supreme Court's opinion by Justice Samuel Alito
held that witnesses in a grand jury proceeding were
entitled to the same absolute immunity from a civil
lawsuit as a witness who testifies at trial.
Without immunity, the truth-seeking process would be
impaired as witnesses might be reluctant to testify,
Alito wrote in the 18-page opinion, adding that a
witness' fear of litigation might deprive a grand jury of
critical evidence.
Alito said potential liability was not needed as a
deterrent to prevent false testimony. Other sanctions,
mainly criminal prosecution for perjury, provided a
sufficient deterrent, he said. The justices agreed to
decide the case after conflicting appeals court rulings
on the issue.
The Supreme Court case is Charles Rehberg v.
James Paulk, No. 10-788.
(Reporting By James Vicini; Editing by Bill Trott and
Todd Eastham)
182