A grand jury indictment is prima facie evidence that the defendant has committed an offense. Bryant v. City of Goodyear, 2014 WL 2048013, * 3 (D. Ariz. May 19, 2014). However, โ[t]his presumption of probable cause can be rebutted if officers improperly exerted pressure on the prosecutor, knowingly provided misinformation, concealed exculpatory evidence, โor otherwise engaged in wrongful or bad faith conduct that was actively instrumental in causing the initiation of legal proceedings.
The grand jury's indictment is "prima facie evidence of probable cause," and the "presumption of probable cause can be rebutted if officers improperly exerted pressure on the prosecutor, knowingly provided misinformation, concealed exculpatory evidence, 'or otherwise engaged in wrongful or bad faith conduct that was actively instrumental in causing the initiation of legal proceedings.'" Bryant v. City of Goodyear, No. CV-12-00319, 2014 WL 2048013, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 19, 2014) (citation omitted). Here, Johari was indicted by a grand jury on two counts of sexual abuse, two counts of voyeurism, one count of tampering with physical evidence, and one count of providing alcohol to a minor.
"Courts should decide issues of qualified immunity as early in the proceedings as possible, but when the answer depends on genuinely disputed issues of material fact, the court must submit the fact-related issues to the jury." Bryant v. City of Goodyear, No. CV-12-00319-PHX-JAT, 2014 WL 2048013, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 19, 2014) (quoting Ortega v. O'Connor, 146 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 1998)). The United States Supreme Court has set forth a two-step testโcomprised of the "constitutional inquiry" and the "qualified immunity inquiry"โto determine if a defendant is entitled to qualified immunity.
The grand jury indictment is prima facie evidence that the defendant has committed an offense. Bryant v. City of Goodyear, 2014 WL 2048013, * 3 (D. Ariz. May 19, 2014). However, "[t]his presumption of probable cause can be rebutted if officers improperly exerted pressure on the prosecutor, knowingly provided misinformation, concealed exculpatory evidence, 'or otherwise engaged in wrongful or bad faith conduct that was actively instrumental in causing the initiation of legal proceedings.'" Id.
Because the court has determined that plaintiffs' ยง 1983 claims necessarily implicate defendant Delaney's grand jury testimony such that, under Rehberg, defendant Delaney is entitled to absolute immunity, defendants Blecha and Thomas cannot be liable as supervisors for that testimony. See Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 555 U.S. 335, 343 (2009) (absolute immunity enjoyed by prosecutors extends to supervising attorneys); Bryant v. City of Goodyear, 2014 WL 2048013, at *6 (D. Ariz. 2014) (grand jury witness was entitled to absolute immunity under Rehberg so supervisory liability claims necessarily failed); Walker v. City of Trenton, 2013 WL 353346, at *4 (D.N.J. 2013) (applying Van de Kamp in the context of Rehberg; supervisors also entitled to absolute immunity); Jackson v. Seewald, 2013 WL 149341, at *7 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) (absolute immunity shields those who act in a supervisory role when the supervisee is protected by absolute immunity). State Law Claims
Although "[t]he grand jury's indictment was prima facie evidence of probable cause that [plaintiff] had committed an offense[,] "[t]his presumption of probable cause can be rebutted if officers improperly exerted pressure on the prosecutor, knowingly provided misinformation, concealed exculpatory evidence, 'or otherwise engaged in wrongful or bad faith conduct that was actively instrumental in causing the initiation of legal proceedings.'" Bryant v. City of Goodyear, Case No. CV-12-00319-PHX-JAT, 2014 WL 2048013, at *3 (D. Ariz. May 19, 2014) (quoting Awabdy, 368 F.3d at 1067). Plaintiff has alleged that Scott and Kessler conducted an inadequate investigation which included coaching witnesses and that they participated in issuing the press release which encouraged other "victims" to come forward.