(11th Cir.1999)) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 . 18 U.S.C. § 3006A (2001) (amended 1998). 7 . Lindberg, 220 F.3d at 1124. 8 . Id. 9 . Id.; see also Sherburne, 249 F.3d at 1127(stating that “the Hyde Amendment [test] should not be an exercise in 20/20 hindsight based solely on reasonableness,” but rather should account for the fluidity of the trial process). 10 . Lindberg, 220 F.3d at 1125. 11 . Id. at 1299. 12 ent made the statements maliciously or with an intent to harass Appellants. 16 . Braunstein, 281 F.3d at 995 (quoting Gilbert, 198 F.3d at 1299) (internal quotation ma wrongfully ignored exculpatory evidence when it presented its case to the grand jury. This argument is foreclosed by United States v. Williams, 504 U.S. 36, 50-55, 112 S.Ct. 1735, 118 L.Ed.2d 352 (1992) (<HOLDING>). 21 . 238 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir.2001). 22 . See
holding that courts have no authority to require the government to disclose exculpatory evidence to the grand jury because it would alter the grandjurys historical role holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding that a defendant cannot present an effective case when the government suppresses material exculpatory evidence holding absolute immunity protects prosecutor from liability for withholding exculpatory evidence from grand jury holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant