their absolute immunity by repeatedly misleading the trial court in order to conceal their alleged misconduct. Reid, 56 F.3d at 337. However, the court held that the prosecutors’ absolute immunity was not defeated because their challenged conduct involved their role as “advocates.” Id., at 337 n. 11. 2. Absolute Testimonial Immunity Witnesses are absolutely immune for the testimony they provide in the course of a judicial proceeding or an adjudication before an administrative agency. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 325, 103 S.Ct. 1108, 75 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983). However, witnesses may be sued under § 1983 for their testimony if the testimony they gave was part of a conspiracy consisting of their testimony and other non-testimonial acts. Malachowski, 787 F.2d at 712; see also Dory, 25 F.3d at 83 (<HOLDING>). But see Hunt v. Bennett, 17 F.3d 1263, 1267
holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony holding that officials are immune unless the law clearly proscribed the actions they took holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a  1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims holding that while witnesses enjoy absolute immunity for their actions in testifying they are not immune for extrajudicial actions such as an alleged conspiracy to present false testimony