Substantial numbers of §1983 complaints filed in the federal courts allege that a state or local prosecutor violated the plaintiff’s federal constitutional rights. Some of these claims allege serious constitutional wrongdoing that caused great harm to the §1983 plaintiff. But even in these cases the prosecutor will almost certainly seek dismissal on the basis of absolute prosecutorial immunity.

Prosecutorial immunity shields a prosecutor’s conduct that is intimately related to the judicial phase of the criminal process. In other words, the immunity protects a prosecutor’s advocacy functions, including the decision to prosecute, determining which offenses to charge, presenting the case to the grand jury, trial preparation, and trying the case. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (1976); Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653, 661 (2d Cir. 1995). Because absolute means absolute, the immunity applies even if the prosecutor acted in a clearly unconstitutional manner, with a political motive, in bad faith, or with malice. Shmueli v. City of New York, 424 F.3d 231, 237-38 (2d Cir. 2005); Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d at 83.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]