Parole Hearing Testimony Absolutely Privileged

The Tennessee Court of Appeals held that testimony of a parole officer at a parole hearing was absolutely privileged

Plaintiff was sentenced to thirty years in prison after pleading guilty to two counts of attempted first degree murder and one count of solicitation of first degree murder for attempting to kill his wife. See Wortman v. State, No. M2021-00068-COA-R3-CV, 2021 WL 5174701, at *1 (Tenn. Ct. App. Nov. 8, 2021), perm. app. denied March 24, 2022. On September 19, 2019, Plaintiff had a parole hearing. Defendant, a detective who worked on Plaintiff’s case, testified unfavorably to Plaintiff being granted parole.

Statements that led to defamation suit

on top of all the conversations that have been brought up today, again, I have to refer to the lack of remorse. It is the dictionary definition of a narcissist. And I’m looking at one every time I see Mr. Wortman. The man can sit there stoically listening to all this testimony and wasting countless hours petitioning the courts of this state, stating that he’s a righteous individual that (indiscernible). I have no doubt that he’s probably remorseful, to some extent, that he got caught. And it’s a shame that we’re having to sit here and waste your time, Mr. Chairman, on a sentence that he pled to. He should have taken — he’s lucky he didn’t get more time in prison. And it would be a travesty and an injustice for this justice system to allow him parole before his 30 percent on that 30 years.

Holding

In sum, Defendant made statements in the course of Plaintiff’s parole hearing before the parole board, then exercising a judicial function, that were relevant and pertinent to the issues involved. Thus, Defendant’s statements at Plaintiff’s September 19, 2019 parole hearing were absolutely privileged because “[i]t is generally recognized that statements made in the course of a judicial proceeding that are relevant and pertinent to the issues involved are absolutely privileged and cannot be the predicate for liability in an action for libel, slander, or invasion of privacy.” Lambdin, 559 S.W.2d at 792. Accepting all of Plaintiff’s factual allegations as true and viewing them in the most favorable light, Plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. We affirm.

(Mike Frisch)