Judge John Walker
Vidro's Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) suit alleged that two federal law enforcement officers gave intentionally false testimony to a federal grand jury about his involvement in a drug conspiracy. As a result, Vidro claimed, he was detained for four months, and suffered severe emotional distress. Second Circuit affirmed dismissal of Vidro's FTCA action by the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. Addressing issues of first impression Second Circuit concluded that if its agents would enjoy immunity from suit under state law, the United States may also assert immunity in FTCA actions. Also, because Connecticut would recognize an absolute privilege for grand jury witness testimony, the United States was not vicariously liable, under the FTCA, for the officers' statements before the federal grand jury. Based on the reasoning in Gallo v. Barile and Simms v. Seaman, Second Circuit determined that were Connecticut courts to consider the matter, they would find statements made under oath by federal grand jury witnesses to be privileged. As discussed in the Supreme Court's ruling in Rehberg v. Paulk, there are strong policy justifications for absolute immunity for witness testimony in grand jury proceedings.
