Franklin

Franklin v. Terr

Good Law
2000 Daily Journal DAR 1293·201 F.3d 1098·2000 WL 121819·2000 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 868·2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 1280
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 2, 2000No. 98-16843California2,242 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Pregerson, J.

A witness has absolute immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 for giving perjured testimony at trial. See Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 326 , 103 S.Ct. 1108 , 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). In this case of first impression, we must decide whether a witness also has absolute immunity from liability for civil damages under § 1983 for conspiring to present her own and another -witness’s perjured testimony at trial. The district court held that a witness has such immunity. See Franklin v. Terr, No. C-97-2443 CRB, 1998 WL 230983 , at *1 (N.D.Cal. Apr.30, 1998). We agree and affirm.

I.

In 1989, Eileen Franklin-Lipsker (“Franklin-Lipsker”) accused her father, George Franklin (“Franklin”), of murdering her childhood friend Susan Nason twenty years earlier. Franklin-Lipsker based her accusation on a memory that she claimed was previously repressed but recently recovered. Franklin was tried and convicted of first degree murder by a jury in California state court.

In 1995, the federal district court granted Franklin's petition for habeas corpus because it concluded that several constitutional errors had occurred during his trial. 1 See Franklin v. Duncan, 884 F.Supp. 1435, 1448…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.