×
You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.
Alabama Appellate Court Upholds Civil Immunity of Witness Testimony at Parole Hearing
Alabama Appellate Court Upholds Civil Immunity of Witness Testimony at
Parole Hearing
Alabama state prisoner William Sullivan filed a civil lawsuit in state
court against William Smith and Karen Smith for slander, perjury and
obstruction of government operations because they allegedly gave false
testimony at his parole hearing. Sullivan was convicted of murdering the
Smiths' son and was sentenced to life in prison. The Smiths moved the trial
court to dismiss Sullivan's claims on the ground that they were absolutely
immune for testifying at his parole hearing. Sullivan objected and the
trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Smiths. Sullivan
appealed the decision.
The state appellate court held that parole hearings are quasi-judicial in
nature. The appeals court also held that the legislature created an
absolute privilege in the state statute to provide individuals and entities
an unfettered opportunity to provide information to the Parole Board
without exposing them to public scrutiny and potential retaliation.
Consequently, the appellate court upheld the trial court's summary judgment
order in favor of the Smiths, ruling that their testimony at Sullivan's
quasi-judicial parole hearing was shielded from an action for defamation.
See: Sullivan v. Smith, No. 2040335 (Ala. App. Ct. Oct. 7, 2005) (not yet
released for publication).
Parole Hearing
Alabama state prisoner William Sullivan filed a civil lawsuit in state
court against William Smith and Karen Smith for slander, perjury and
obstruction of government operations because they allegedly gave false
testimony at his parole hearing. Sullivan was convicted of murdering the
Smiths' son and was sentenced to life in prison. The Smiths moved the trial
court to dismiss Sullivan's claims on the ground that they were absolutely
immune for testifying at his parole hearing. Sullivan objected and the
trial court entered summary judgment in favor of the Smiths. Sullivan
appealed the decision.
The state appellate court held that parole hearings are quasi-judicial in
nature. The appeals court also held that the legislature created an
absolute privilege in the state statute to provide individuals and entities
an unfettered opportunity to provide information to the Parole Board
without exposing them to public scrutiny and potential retaliation.
Consequently, the appellate court upheld the trial court's summary judgment
order in favor of the Smiths, ruling that their testimony at Sullivan's
quasi-judicial parole hearing was shielded from an action for defamation.
See: Sullivan v. Smith, No. 2040335 (Ala. App. Ct. Oct. 7, 2005) (not yet
released for publication).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Sullivan v. Smith
| Year | 2005 |
|---|---|
| Cite | No. 2040335 (Ala. App. Ct. Oct. 7, 2005) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Attorney Fees | 0 |
| Damages | 0 |
| Injunction Status | N/A |