Charles A. Rehberg, Petitioner v. James P. Paulk (566 U.S. 356)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided April 2, 2012 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 566 U.S. 356 · 132 S. Ct. 1497
- Decided
- April 2, 2012
- Term
- October Term 2011
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Alito
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court. This case requires ús 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 jury and trial witnesses. I Petitioner Charles Rehberg, a certified public accountant, sent anonymous faxes to several recipients, including the management of a hospital in Albany, Georgia, criticizing the hospital’s management and activities. In response, the local district attorney’s office, with the assistance of its chief investigator, respondent James Paulk, launched a criminal investigation of petitioner, allegedly as a favor to the hospital’s leadership. Respondent testified before a grand jury, and petitioner was then indicted for aggravated assault, burglary, and six counts of making harassing telephone calls. The indictment charged that petitioner had assaulted a hospital physician, Dr. James Hotz, after unlawfully entering the doctor’s home. Petitioner challenged the sufficiency of the indictment, and it was dismissed. A few months later, respondent returned to the grand jury, and petitioner was indicted again, this time for assaulting Dr. Hotz on August 22,2004, and for making harassing phone calls. On this occasion, both the doctor and…
Excerpt of a 32,847-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.