April 2, 2012

U.S. Supreme Court 4-2-12 Rehberg v. Paulk

Rehberg v. Paulk            Immunity            
Facts: After a court dismissed three separate indictments all alleging the same facts, Mr. Rehberg filed a lawsuit against the pissant that is Mr. Paulk. Mr. Paulk worked as the Chief Investigator for some small rathole District Attorney's Office in Albany, Georgia. Seems Mr. Rehberg was none too pleased with the hospital in Albany, and let the hospital, a Dr. James Holtz, and everyone else know about it via fax and other methods. The hospital and Dr. Holtz worked themselves into a tizzy, contacted Mr. Paulk, and as a favor, Sir Pissant Paulk launched a criminal investigation of Mr. Rehberg. Three separate times Mr. Paulk testified to a grand jury, and three separate times he successfully convinced a grand jury to indict Mr. Rehberg on burglary and assault. Three separate times, Mr. Rehberg successfully got the indictments dismissed for lack of sufficiency. After the third dismissal, Mr. Rehberg filed a lawsuit against the vindictive Mr. Paulk.
Issue: Whether the witness immunity protects law enforcement witnesses who testify during a grand jury?
Held: Yes.
Reasoning: Turning a blind-eye to the abuse of power here, the Court simply held that witnesses in grand jury settings should be afforded all the same protections as witnesses who testify in jury trials. Lawsuit dismissed.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search the Sword

There was an error in this gadget