form, and context of Karl's testimony establish that her speech related to a matter of public concern. 3 . In a recent decision extending absolute immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to grand jury witnesses, the Supreme Court "[saw] no sound reason to draw a distinction for this purpose between grand jury and trial wit nesses,” notwithstanding the secrecy of grand jury proceedings. Rehberg v. Paulk, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1497, 1500, 182 L.Ed.2d 593 (2012). Trial witnesses have long been afforded abso 5 . See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 287, 97 S.Ct. 568, 50 L.Ed.2d 471 (1977). 6 . Caw's attempt to seek shelter in what he characterizes as an out-of-circuit split of authority is equally unavailing. Compare Morales v. Jones, 494 F.3d 590, 595 (7th Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>), with Morris v. Crow, 142 F.3d 1379, 1382-83
holding that a police officers deposition in a fellow officers  1983 action alleging unlawful retaliation was protected speech holding that alleged discrimination in merit pay increases and salary raises against tenured professor alleging retaliation for his protected speech would constitute denials of governmental benefits redressable by  1983 holding that an action brought pursuant to  1983 cannot lie against federal officers holding that even if the plaintiff had asserted a cause of action under the virginia wrongful death act against the city police officers the police officers would be entitled to sovereign immunity holding that the plaintiffs reports of his fellow police officers discriminatory treatment of minority citizens was not protected activity under title vii