Opinion ID: 173410
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dr. Albritton

Text: Like the absolute immunity afforded prosecutors who perform actions intimately associated with the judicial process, [t]he immunity of parties and witnesses from subsequent damages liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings is well established in the common law.... Spielman, 873 F.2d at 1382. Testifying witness immunity is supported by the public policy of preserving the truthfinding process from distortions caused by fear of suit. Id. The Jensens' claims against Dr. Albritton center on her testimony before the juvenile court; the Jensens allege that her testimony contained various misrepresentations and had more the flavor of someone working to perpetuate proceedings ( i.e., a complaining witness), than merely providing objective information. This contention reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the well-established immunity for testifying witnesses. A witness is absolutely immune from civil liability based on any testimony the witness provides during a judicial proceeding even if the witness knew the statements were false and made them with malice. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 332, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). Thus, even if Dr. Albritton's testimony was aimed at perpetuating the custody proceedings against the Jensens, she is protected by absolute immunity. Accordingly, Dr. Albritton is absolutely immune from any claims against her in this § 1983 suit.