Putnam’s testimony before a public body investigating misconduct by public officials into a matter only 'of private interest. See Connick, 461 U.S. at 147-48, 103 S.Ct. 1684 (emphasis added). If such were the case then virtually all testimony given before a court or other public body would fall outside the realm of protected First Amendment speech so long as the events surrounding the trial or hearing were widely publicized. Surely, this cannot be so. See Konits v. Valley Stream Cent. High Sch., 394 F.3d 121, 126 (2d Cir.2005) (citing Mandell v. County of Suffolk, 316 F.3d 368, 383 (2d Cir.2003)) (noting that speech is of particular public concern when it involves actual testimony in court or in .administrative proceedings); Scrima v. Gay, 322 F.Supp.2d 49, 51 (D.Mass.2004) (Zobel, J.) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted). Moreover, the law is quite
holding that issues of prison security public safety and official corruption are matters of public concern holding that a public employees deposition testimony involves a matter of public concern if arguably a statement about misconduct or corruption in city government and regardless of whether testimony is given in employees official capacity holding that employees voluntary testimony is also inherently a matter of public concern holding that a public employees internal memoranda raising concerns about public corruption are protected first amendment speech because they addressed a matter of public concern holding that a public employees expressive conduct in support of a coworker in her personnel dispute was a matter of public concern because it helped expose potential government misconduct