enjoys absolute immunity from § 1983 liability. Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259, 269, 113 S.Ct. 2606, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 (1993). The availability of absolute immunity depends upon the nature of the function being performed rather than the identity of the actor who performed it. Buckley, 509 U.S. at 269, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (quoting Forrester v. White, 484 U.S. 219, 229, 108 S.Ct. 538, 98 L.Ed.2d 555 (1988)). Thus, absolute immunity pro tects those acts which are closely associated with the judicial process and which are performed in the course of the prosecutor’s role as an advo 4 (3d Cir.1992) (“Consideration of personal motives is directly at odds with the Supreme Court’s simple functional analysis of prosecutorial immunity.”); Grant v. Hollenbach, 870 F.2d 1135, 1138 (6th Cir.1989) (<HOLDING>); Krohn v. United States, 742 F.2d 24, 30 (1st
holding prosecutor absolutely immune for deciding to pursue criminal charges despite challenge to his motivation holding prosecutor absolutely immune from suit for deciding to investigate and conspir ing to present false charges to the grand jury holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability holding that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from a suit claiming that he destroyed and falsified evidence