rehberg
paulk
argued
november
decided
april
respondent
chief
investigator
district
attorney
office
testified
grand
jury
proceedings
resulted
petitioner
indictment
indictments
dismissed
petitioner
brought
action
alleging
respondent
conspired
present
present
false
testimony
grand
jury
federal
district
denied
respondent
motion
dismiss
immunity
grounds
eleventh
circuit
reversed
holding
respondent
absolute
immunity
claim
based
grand
jury
testimony
held
witness
grand
jury
proceeding
entitled
absolute
immunity
suit
witness
testifies
trial
pp
section
derives
civil
rights
act
meant
effect
radical
departure
ordinary
tort
law
immunities
applicable
tort
suits
see
burns
reed
interpretation
reaffirmed
time
thus
looks
common
law
guidance
determining
scope
immunities
available
actions
brought
see
kalina
fletcher
taking
functional
approach
see
forrester
white
identifies
governmental
functions
historically
viewed
important
vulnerable
interference
means
litigation
form
absolute
immunity
civil
liability
needed
ensure
independence
without
fear
consequences
pierson
ray
functional
approach
tied
common
law
identification
functions
meriting
protection
absolute
immunity
precedents
mechanically
duplicated
precise
scope
absolute
immunity
common
law
provided
protect
functions
example
common
cases
prosecuted
private
parties
enjoy
absolute
immunity
suit
prosecutorial
function
increasingly
assumed
public
officials
courts
held
public
prosecutors
unlike
private
predecessors
absolutely
immune
types
tort
claims
aggrieved
vengeful
criminal
defendant
likely
assert
adaptation
prosecutorial
immunity
accommodated
special
needs
public
opposed
private
prosecutors
thus
issue
prosecutorial
immunity
reached
imbler
pachtman
simply
apply
scope
immunity
recognized
courts
instead
relied
substantially
cases
extending
broad
immunity
public
prosecutors
sued
torts
neither
suggested
simply
federalized
amalgamation
claims
new
federal
claim
created
differs
important
ways
torts
accordingly
scope
new
tort
scope
absolute
immunity
available
actions
differ
respects
common
law
pp
trial
witness
sued
enjoys
absolute
immunity
claim
based
testimony
briscoe
lahue
without
absolute
immunity
process
impaired
witnesses
might
reluctant
testify
even
witness
took
stand
might
inclined
shade
testimony
favor
potential
plaintiff
fear
subsequent
liability
factors
apply
equal
force
grand
jury
witnesses
contexts
witness
fear
retaliatory
litigation
may
deprive
tribunal
critical
evidence
neither
context
deterrent
potential
civil
liability
needed
prevent
false
testimony
sanctions
chiefly
prosecution
perjury
provide
sufficient
deterrent
reasons
identified
briscoe
supra
reason
distinguish
law
enforcement
witnesses
lay
witnesses
actions
rule
grand
jury
witness
absolute
immunity
claim
based
witness
testimony
may
circumvented
claiming
grand
jury
witness
conspired
present
false
testimony
using
evidence
witness
testimony
support
claim
concerning
initiation
maintenance
prosecution
otherwise
criminal
defendant
turned
civil
plaintiff
reframe
claim
attack
preparatory
activity
preliminary
discussion
witness
relates
substance
intended
testimony
rather
absolutely
immune
actions
pp
petitioner
main
argument
malley
briggs
kalina
fletcher
grand
jury
witnesses
complaining
witnesses
entitled
absolute
immunity
time
predecessor
enacted
complaining
witness
party
procured
arrest
initiated
criminal
prosecution
complaining
witness
might
testify
either
grand
jury
trial
testifying
necessary
characteristic
complaining
witness
thus
testifying
whether
grand
jury
trial
distinctive
function
performed
complaining
witness
complaining
witness
held
liable
perjurious
trial
testimony
see
briscoe
reason
complaining
witness
subject
liability
testimony
grand
jury
distinctive
function
performed
complaining
witness
understood
apparent
law
enforcement
officer
testifies
grand
jury
comparable
complaining
witness
officer
makes
critical
decision
press
criminal
charges
prosecutor
anomalous
permit
police
officer
testifying
grand
jury
sued
maliciously
procuring
unjust
prosecution
prosecutor
shielded
absolute
immunity
actually
responsible
decision
initiate
prosecution
petitioner
also
contends
deterrent
effect
civil
liability
needed
grand
jury
proceedings
trial
witnesses
face
force
argument
offset
problem
allowing
civil
actions
create
subversion
grand
jury
secrecy
essential
proper
functioning
grand
jury
system
see
sells
engineering
finally
contrary
petitioner
suggestion
recognizing
absolute
immunity
grand
jury
witnesses
create
insupportable
distinction
use
grand
juries
permit
felony
prosecutions
brought
complaint
information
require
indictment
felonies
provide
preliminary
hearing
witnesses
testify
lower
courts
held
preliminary
hearing
witnesses
protected
immunity
accorded
grand
jury
witnesses
pp
affirmed
alito
delivered
opinion
unanimous
opinion
notice
opinion
subject
formal
revision
publication
preliminary
print
reports
readers
requested
notify
reporter
decisions
washington
typographical
formal
errors
order
corrections
may
made
preliminary
print
goes
press
charles
rehberg
petitioner
james
paulk
writ
certiorari
appeals
eleventh
circuit
april
justice
alito
delivered
opinion
case
requires
us
decide
whether
complaining
witness
grand
jury
proceeding
entitled
immunity
action
witness
testifies
trial
see
sound
reason
draw
distinction
purpose
grand
jury
trial
witnesses
petitioner
charles
rehberg
certified
public
accountant
sent
anonymous
faxes
several
recipients
including
management
hospital
albany
georgia
criticizing
hospital
management
activities
response
local
district
attorney
office
assistance
chief
investigator
respondent
james
paulk
launched
criminal
investigation
petitioner
allegedly
favor
hospital
leadership
respondent
testified
grand
jury
petitioner
indicted
aggravated
assault
burglary
six
counts
making
harassing
telephone
calls
indictment
charged
petitioner
assaulted
hospital
physician
james
hotz
unlawfully
entering
doctor
home
petitioner
challenged
sufficiency
indictment
dismissed
months
later
respondent
returned
grand
jury
petitioner
indicted
time
assaulting
hotz
august
making
harassing
phone
calls
occasion
doctor
respondent
testified
petitioner
challenged
sufficiency
second
indictment
claiming
nowhere
near
hotz
date
question
evidence
whatsoever
committed
assault
anybody
indictment
dismissed
second
indictment
still
pending
respondent
appeared
grand
jury
third
time
yet
another
indictment
returned
petitioner
charged
assault
making
harassing
phone
calls
final
indictment
ultimately
dismissed
well
petitioner
brought
action
respondent
rev
stat
petitioner
alleged
respondent
conspired
present
present
false
testimony
grand
jury
respondent
moved
dismiss
arguing
among
things
entitled
absolute
immunity
grand
jury
testimony
district
middle
district
georgia
denied
respondent
motion
dismiss
appeals
reversed
holding
accordance
circuit
precedent
respondent
absolutely
immune
claim
based
grand
jury
testimony
appeals
noted
petitioner
allegation
respondent
sole
complaining
witness
grand
jury
appeals
declined
recognize
complaining
witness
exception
precedent
grand
jury
witness
immunity
see
llowing
civil
suits
false
grand
jury
testimony
reasoned
emasculate
confidential
nature
grand
jury
testimony
eviscerate
traditional
absolute
immunity
witness
testimony
judicial
proceedings
went
hold
respondent
entitled
absolute
immunity
respect
claims
based
directly
grand
jury
testimony
also
respect
claim
conspired
present
testimony
allow
liability
predicated
alleged
conspiracy
concluded
permit
back
door
prohibited
front
ibid
quoting
jones
cannon
granted
certiorari
resolve
circuit
conflict
regarding
immunity
complaining
witness
grand
jury
proceeding
affirm
ii
section
derives
civil
rights
act
stat
creates
private
right
action
vindicate
violations
rights
privileges
immunities
secured
constitution
laws
terms
statute
person
acts
color
state
law
deprive
another
constitutional
right
answerable
person
suit
damages
imbler
pachtman
citing
despite
broad
terms
long
recognized
statute
meant
effect
radical
departure
ordinary
tort
law
immunities
applicable
tort
suits
see
burns
reed
years
ago
tenney
brandhove
held
abrogate
absolute
immunity
enjoyed
legislators
actions
taken
within
legitimate
sphere
legislative
authority
immunities
well
grounded
history
reason
wrote
somehow
eliminated
covert
inclusion
general
language
interpretation
reaffirmed
time
entrenched
feature
jurisprudence
see
pierson
ray
legislative
record
gives
clear
indication
congress
meant
abolish
wholesale
immunities
accordingly
held
immunity
legislators
acts
within
legislative
role
abolished
immunity
judges
acts
within
judicial
role
equally
well
established
presume
congress
specifically
provided
wished
abolish
doctrine
imbler
supra
statute
must
read
harmony
general
principles
tort
immunities
defenses
rather
derogation
procunier
navarette
although
recognized
enacting
congress
must
intended
expose
state
officials
damages
liability
circumstances
section
consistently
construed
intending
wholesale
revocation
immunity
afforded
government
officials
briscoe
lahue
well
settled
tort
liability
created
understood
historical
vacuum
one
important
assumption
underlying
decisions
area
members
congress
familiar
principles
including
defenses
previously
recognized
ordinary
tort
litigation
likely
intended
principles
obtain
absent
specific
provisions
quoting
newport
fact
concerts
pulliam
allen
starting
point
analysis
common
law
cases
proceeded
assumption
principles
immunity
incorporated
judicial
system
abrogated
absent
clear
legislative
intent
recognizing
congress
intended
construed
light
principles
looked
common
law
guidance
determining
scope
immunities
available
action
kalina
fletcher
simply
make
judgment
need
immunity
made
clear
role
make
freewheeling
policy
choice
malley
briggs
license
create
immunities
based
solely
view
sound
policy
see
tower
glover
instead
conduct
considered
inquiry
immunity
historically
accorded
relevant
official
common
law
interests
behind
imbler
supra
take
termed
functional
approach
see
forrester
white
burns
supra
consult
common
law
identify
governmental
functions
historically
viewed
important
vulnerable
interference
means
litigation
form
absolute
immunity
civil
liability
needed
ensure
performed
independence
without
fear
consequences
pierson
supra
quoting
bradley
fisher
wall
taking
approach
identified
following
functions
absolutely
immune
liability
damages
actions
taken
legislators
within
legitimate
scope
legislative
authority
see
tenney
supra
actions
taken
judges
within
legitimate
scope
judicial
authority
see
pierson
supra
actions
taken
prosecutors
role
advocates
see
imbler
giving
testimony
witnesses
trial
see
briscoe
supra
contrast
found
absolute
immunity
acts
chief
executive
officer
state
senior
subordinate
officers
state
national
guard
president
state
university
see
scheuer
rhodes
school
board
members
see
wood
strickland
superintendent
state
hospital
see
donaldson
police
officers
see
pierson
supra
prison
officials
officers
procunier
supra
private
judge
see
dennis
sparks
functional
approach
tied
common
law
identification
functions
merit
protection
absolute
immunity
precedents
mechanically
duplicated
precise
scope
absolute
immunity
common
law
provided
protect
functions
see
burns
precise
contours
official
immunity
need
mirror
immunity
common
law
quoting
anderson
creighton
approach
illustrated
analysis
absolute
immunity
enjoyed
today
public
prosecutors
predecessor
enacted
common
criminal
cases
prosecuted
private
parties
see
stewart
sonneborn
bradley
dissenting
man
community
probable
cause
prosecuting
another
perfect
right
law
institute
prosecution
subject
case
private
prosecutions
penalty
paying
costs
fails
suit
private
prosecutors
like
private
plaintiffs
civil
suits
enjoy
absolute
immunity
suit
see
malley
citing
cases
instead
generally
accepted
rule
private
complainant
procured
arrest
prosecution
held
liable
action
malicious
prosecution
complainant
acted
malice
without
probable
cause
see
see
also
briscoe
marshall
dissenting
english
american
courts
routinely
permitted
plaintiffs
bring
actions
alleging
defendant
made
false
malicious
accusation
felony
magistrate
judicial
officer
wheeler
nesbitt
undoubtedly
every
person
puts
criminal
law
force
maliciously
without
reasonable
probable
cause
commits
wrongful
act
accused
thereby
prejudiced
either
person
property
injury
loss
sustained
constitute
proper
foundation
action
recover
compensation
dinsman
wilkes
immunity
party
maliciously
without
probable
cause
procured
plaintiff
indicted
arrested
offence
guilty
decades
adoption
civil
rights
act
however
prosecutorial
function
increasingly
assumed
public
officials
courts
held
public
prosecutors
unlike
private
predecessors
absolutely
immune
types
tort
claims
aggrieved
vengeful
criminal
defendant
likely
assert
namely
claims
malicious
prosecution
defamation
see
imbler
supra
white
concurring
judgment
kalina
supra
noting
cases
decided
granted
broader
immunity
public
prosecutors
available
malicious
prosecution
actions
private
persons
brought
prosecutions
early
common
law
see
also
burns
supra
scalia
concurring
judgment
part
dissenting
part
noting
tradition
prosecutorial
immunity
developed
much
later
adaptation
prosecutorial
immunity
accommodated
special
needs
public
opposed
private
prosecutors
daily
function
public
prosecutor
bring
criminal
charges
tort
claims
public
prosecutors
expected
frequency
defendant
often
transform
resentment
prosecuted
ascription
improper
malicious
actions
state
advocate
imbler
harassment
unfounded
litigation
cause
deflection
prosecutor
energies
public
duties
result
severe
interference
administration
important
public
office
constant
vulnerability
vexatious
litigation
give
rise
possibility
prosecutor
shade
decisions
instead
exercising
independence
judgment
required
public
trust
ibid
thus
issue
prosecutorial
immunity
reached
imbler
simply
apply
scope
immunity
recognized
courts
instead
placed
substantial
reliance
cases
extending
broad
immunity
public
prosecutors
sued
torts
looked
common
law
determining
scope
absolute
immunity
available
suggested
simply
federalized
amalgamation
claims
federal
claim
encompassing
torts
assault
trespass
false
arrest
defamation
malicious
prosecution
new
federal
claim
created
differs
important
ways
torts
broader
reaches
constitutional
statutory
violations
correspond
previously
known
tort
see
kalina
narrower
applies
tortfeasors
act
color
state
law
see
briscoe
supra
section
ha
precise
counterpart
state
law
purest
coincidence
state
statutes
common
law
provide
equivalent
remedies
analogies
causes
action
bound
imperfect
wilson
garcia
internal
quotation
marks
citation
omitted
thus
scope
new
tort
scope
absolute
immunity
available
actions
differ
respects
common
law
iii
common
law
trial
witnesses
enjoyed
limited
form
absolute
immunity
statements
made
course
judicial
proceeding
complete
immunity
slander
libel
claims
even
alleged
statements
question
maliciously
false
kalina
supra
scalia
concurring
citing
hilliard
law
torts
see
briscoe
supra
marshall
dissenting
burns
opinion
scalia
briscoe
however
held
immunity
trial
witness
sued
broader
case
trial
witness
absolute
immunity
respect
claim
based
witness
testimony
witness
sued
testimony
wrote
claims
individual
must
yield
dictates
public
policy
quoting
calkins
sumner
without
absolute
immunity
witnesses
concluded
process
trial
impaired
witnesses
might
reluctant
come
forward
testify
even
witness
took
stand
witness
might
inclined
shade
testimony
favor
potential
plaintiff
fear
subsequent
liability
factors
justify
absolute
immunity
trial
witnesses
apply
equal
force
grand
jury
witnesses
contexts
witness
fear
retaliatory
litigation
may
deprive
tribunal
critical
evidence
neither
context
deterrent
potential
civil
liability
needed
prevent
perjurious
testimony
briscoe
concluded
possibility
civil
liability
needed
deter
false
testimony
trial
sanctions
chiefly
prosecution
perjury
provided
sufficient
deterrent
since
perjury
grand
jury
like
perjury
trial
serious
criminal
offense
see
reason
think
deterrent
less
effective
preventing
false
grand
jury
testimony
neither
reason
distinguish
law
enforcement
witnesses
lay
witnesses
briscoe
argued
absolute
immunity
needed
witnesses
refused
draw
distinction
wrote
police
officer
appears
witness
may
reasonably
viewed
acting
like
witness
sworn
tell
truth
event
make
strong
claim
witness
immunity
alternatively
may
regarded
official
performing
critical
role
judicial
process
event
may
seek
benefit
afforded
governmental
participants
proceeding
nothing
language
statute
suggests
witness
belongs
narrow
special
category
lacking
protection
damages
suits
omitted
see
also
police
officer
witness
stand
performs
functions
witness
briscoe
rebuffed
two
arguments
distinguishing
law
enforcement
witnesses
lay
witnesses
immunity
purposes
first
absolute
immunity
needed
law
enforcement
witnesses
less
likely
intimidated
threat
suit
second
witnesses
shielded
absolute
immunity
false
testimony
police
officer
likely
damaging
false
testimony
lay
witness
see
ibid
observed
factors
applicable
lay
witnesses
weigh
favor
extending
absolute
immunity
police
officer
witnesses
first
police
officers
testify
frequency
police
officers
testify
scores
cases
every
year
noted
defendants
often
transform
resentment
convicted
allegations
perjury
state
official
witnesses
ibid
police
officer
witnesses
routinely
forced
defend
claims
based
testimony
attention
diverted
pressing
duty
enforcing
criminal
law
quoting
imbler
second
police
officer
witness
potential
liability
conditioned
exoneration
accused
influence
decisions
appeal
collateral
relief
needless
say
decisions
influenced
likelihood
subsequent
civil
rights
action
possibility
decision
favorable
accused
might
subject
police
officer
witness
liability
create
injecting
extraneous
appellate
review
postconviction
proceedings
ibid
quoting
imbler
supra
addition
law
enforcement
witnesses
face
possibility
sanctions
applicable
lay
witnesses
namely
loss
jobs
sanctions
reasons
conclude
grand
jury
witnesses
enjoy
immunity
witnesses
trial
means
grand
jury
witness
absolute
immunity
claim
based
witness
testimony
addition
appeals
held
rule
may
circumvented
claiming
grand
jury
witness
conspired
present
false
testimony
using
evidence
witness
testimony
support
claim
concerning
initiation
maintenance
prosecution
otherwise
criminal
defendant
turned
civil
plaintiff
simply
reframe
claim
attack
preparation
instead
absolutely
immune
actions
buckley
fitzsimmons
kennedy
concurring
part
dissenting
part
see
also
dykes
hosemann
per
curiam
udges
mere
allegations
conspiracy
prior
agreement
hauled
made
defend
judicial
acts
precise
result
judicial
immunity
designed
avoid
vast
majority
cases
involving
claim
grand
jury
witness
witness
prosecutor
conducting
investigation
engage
preparatory
activity
preliminary
discussion
witness
relates
substance
intended
testimony
decline
endorse
rule
absolute
immunity
easily
iv
petitioner
main
argument
cases
chiefly
malley
kalina
already
establish
complaining
witness
shielded
absolute
immunity
see
brief
petitioner
cases
law
enforcement
officials
submitted
affidavits
support
applications
arrest
warrants
denied
absolute
immunity
performed
function
complaining
witness
kalina
see
malley
relying
cases
petitioner
contends
certain
grand
jury
witnesses
namely
qualify
complaining
witnesses
entitled
absolute
immunity
petitioner
argument
based
fundamental
misunderstanding
distinctive
function
played
complaining
witness
period
predecessor
enacted
time
term
complaining
witness
used
refer
party
procured
arrest
initiated
criminal
prosecution
see
kalina
scalia
concurring
complaining
witness
might
actually
ever
testify
thus
term
witness
misleading
ibid
see
also
malley
supra
complaining
witness
procure
issuance
arrest
warrant
submitting
complaint
wyatt
cole
complaining
witness
set
wheels
government
motion
instigating
legal
action
true
century
complaining
witness
might
testify
either
grand
jury
trial
testifying
necessary
characteristic
complaining
witness
see
newell
malicious
prosecution
presented
evidence
witnesses
testify
grand
jury
regarded
complaining
witnesses
successfully
sued
malicious
prosecution
see
tr
oral
arg
sum
testifying
whether
grand
jury
trial
distinctive
function
performed
complaining
witness
clear
petitioner
contend
otherwise
complaining
witness
held
liable
perjurious
trial
testimony
briscoe
reason
complaining
witness
subject
liability
testimony
grand
jury
distinctive
function
performed
complaining
witness
understood
apparent
law
enforcement
officer
testifies
grand
jury
comparable
complaining
witness
testifying
grand
jury
law
enforcement
officer
perform
function
applying
arrest
warrant
officer
make
critical
decision
initiate
prosecution
course
true
detective
case
agent
performed
supervised
investigative
work
case
may
serve
important
witness
grand
jury
proceeding
may
much
want
grand
jury
return
indictment
witness
unlike
complaining
witness
common
law
make
decision
press
criminal
charges
instead
almost
always
prosecutor
responsible
decision
present
case
grand
jury
many
jurisdictions
even
indictment
handed
prosecution
proceed
unless
prosecutor
signs
thus
anomalous
permit
police
officer
testifies
grand
jury
sued
maliciously
procuring
unjust
prosecution
prosecutor
shielded
absolute
immunity
actually
responsible
decision
prosecute
see
albright
oliver
ginsburg
concurring
prosecutor
principal
player
carrying
prosecution
see
ibid
star
player
exonerated
supporting
actor
precisely
grand
jury
witness
power
initiate
prosecution
petitioner
unable
provide
workable
standard
determining
whether
particular
grand
jury
witness
complaining
witness
respondent
witness
testify
two
three
grand
jury
sessions
resulted
indictments
multiple
witnesses
testify
grand
jury
identifying
complaining
witness
often
difficult
petitioner
suggests
complaining
witness
someone
sets
prosecution
motion
tr
oral
arg
see
reply
brief
petitioner
petitioner
maintains
distinction
made
common
law
complaining
witnesses
witnesses
applies
actions
see
explained
complaining
witness
played
distinctive
role
therefore
even
complaining
witness
testified
clear
basis
distinguishing
complaining
witness
witnesses
modern
grand
jury
witness
plays
comparable
role
petitioner
proposed
test
little
use
consider
case
case
agent
lead
detective
testifies
grand
jury
provides
wealth
background
information
cooperating
witness
appears
furnishes
critical
incriminating
testimony
suppose
two
witnesses
provide
essential
testimony
regarding
different
counts
indictment
different
elements
offense
cases
witnesses
complaining
witnesses
thus
vulnerable
suit
based
testimony
petitioner
contends
deterrent
effect
civil
liability
needed
grand
jury
context
trial
witnesses
exposed
designed
expose
perjury
see
brief
petitioner
argument
overlooks
fact
critical
grand
jury
witness
likely
testify
trial
may
time
event
force
petitioner
argument
offset
special
problem
created
allowing
civil
actions
grand
jury
witnesses
subversion
grand
jury
consistently
recognized
proper
functioning
grand
jury
system
depends
upon
secrecy
grand
jury
proceedings
sells
engineering
quoting
douglas
oil
petrol
stops
northwest
preindictment
proceedings
made
public
many
prospective
witnesses
hesitant
come
forward
voluntarily
knowing
testify
aware
testimony
moreover
witnesses
appeared
grand
jury
less
likely
testify
fully
frankly
open
retribution
allowing
actions
grand
jury
witnesses
compromise
vital
secrecy
testimony
witnesses
grand
jury
provide
basis
used
evidence
supporting
claim
identities
grand
jury
witnesses
discovered
filing
action
moving
disclosure
transcript
grand
jury
proceedings
especially
cases
involving
violent
criminal
organizations
subjects
might
retaliate
adverse
grand
jury
witnesses
threat
disclosure
might
seriously
undermine
grand
jury
process
finally
contrary
petitioner
suggestion
recognizing
absolute
immunity
grand
jury
witnesses
create
insupportable
distinction
use
grand
juries
petitioner
argues
make
sense
distinguish
purposes
immunity
prosecutions
initiated
return
grand
jury
indictment
initiated
filing
complaint
information
notes
permit
felony
prosecutions
brought
information
brief
petitioner
petitioner
draws
wrong
analogy
permit
felony
prosecutions
initiated
information
closest
analog
grand
jury
witness
witness
preliminary
hearing
require
indictment
felonies
provide
preliminary
hearing
witnesses
testify
see
lafave
lower
courts
held
witnesses
preliminary
hearing
protected
immunity
accorded
grand
jury
witnesses
see
brice
nkaru
curtis
bembenek
citing
cases
petitioner
argue
otherwise
see
tr
oral
arg
reasons
hold
grand
jury
witness
entitled
immunity
trial
witness
accordingly
judgment
appeals
eleventh
circuit
affirmed
footnotes
course
suggest
absolute
immunity
extends
activity
witness
conducts
outside
grand
jury
room
example
accorded
qualified
immunity
law
enforcement
officials
falsify
affidavits
see
kalina
fletcher
malley
briggs
fabricate
evidence
concerning
unsolved
crime
see
buckley
federal
courts
concluded
uniformly
rule
federal
rules
criminal
procedure
providing
indictment
must
signed
attorney
government
precludes
federal
grand
juries
issuing
indictment
without
prosecutor
signature
signifying
approval
see
lafave
israel
king
kerr
criminal
procedure
ed
hereinafter
lafave
however
jurisdictions
grand
jury
may
return
indictment
initiate
prosecution
without
prosecutor
signature
cases
rare
see
beale
bryson
felman
elston
grand
jury
law
practice
ed
petitioner
says
reason
distinguish
person
goes
police
swear
criminal
complaint
person
testifies
facts
grand
jury
purpose
effect
brief
petitioner
like
saying
bicycle
thing
even
functions
similar
general
matter
entities
quite
different
grand
juries
tradition
statute
sometimes
constitutional
mandate
status
entitlement
information
absolute
immunity
furthers
see
imbler
pachtman
functional
comparability
judgments
judge
resulted
grand
jurors
prosecutors
referred
officers
immunities
termed
well
see
also
sells
engineering
grand
jury
always
occupied
high
place
instrument
justice
system
criminal
law
much
enshrined
constitution
holding
today
supports
functioning
grand
jury
system
importance
grand
jury
underestimated
federal
system
many
see
lafave
felony
charged
without
consent
community
representatives
vital
protection
unwarranted
prosecutions