immunity is inapplicable with respect to allegations of witness tampering, because such activity is directed at "the collection of information to be used in a prosecution.” Moore, however, is inconsistent with Brandley v. Keeshan, 64 F.3d 196, 201 (5th Cir.1995), in which we held that the prosecutor retained his absolute immunity even in the face of allegations that he had dire (5th Cir.1979); see also Reid v. New Hampshire, 56 nduct unprotected because it occurred before empanelment of grand jury or determination of probable cause). 16 . See House v. Belford, 956 F.2d 711, 721-22 (7th Cir.1992) (finding prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity where he denied that he had instructed deputy to bar courtroom to defendant's family and potential witnesses); cf. Brandley, 64 F.3d at 201 (<HOLDING>). 17 . Brandley, 64 F.3d at 201 (witness
holding that witness immunity does not bar a claim against a retained expert witness for negligence performance of his duty holding prosecutor had absolute immunity for claim for eliciting misleading testimony in a probable cause hearing 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 a prosecutor accused of knowingly presenting false testimony at trial is protected by absolute immunity holding that prosecutor retained absolute immunity despite allegations of witness intimidation in attempt to suppress testimony