... is a genuine constitutional wrong” that violates “the right of the person being interrogated to be free from coercion.” Id. The court further held, however, that the plaintiff could not “complain that the prosecutors may have twisted [the witness’s] arm” because “[r]ights personal to their holders may not be enforced by third parties.” Id. at 794-95 (citations omitted). The court in Buckley ruled that “using one person’s coerced confession at another’s trial violates his rights under the due process clause,” but that “[p]rosecutors are entitled to absolute immunity for actions as advocates before the grand jury and at trial even if they present unreliable or wholly fictitious proofs.” Id. at 795; see also Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 431, 96 S.Ct. 984, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Consistent with the analysis of the Seventh
holding that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from  1983 suits for initiating a prosecution and presenting the case at trial holding prosecutors immune from civil suits for initiating prosecutions and presenting cases holding that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages under  1988 in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the states case including deciding which evidence to present recognizing absolute immunity to suits under 42 usc  1988 holding that a prosecutor accused of knowingly presenting false testimony at trial is protected by absolute immunity