“reasons for absolute immunity applied] with full force” to the conduct at issue because it was “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” The fact that one constitutional duty at issue was a positive duty (the duty to supply “information relevant to the defense”) rather than a negative duty (the duty not to “use ... perjured testimony”) made no difference.... In the years since Imbler, we have held that absolute immunity applies when a prosecutor prepares to initiate a judicial proceeding, or appears in court to present evidence in support of a search warrant application. We have held that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, when the prosecutor makes statements to the press, r.1978) (<HOLDING>). Id. at 340 (some citations omitted).
holding that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from a suit claiming that he destroyed and falsified evidence holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983 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 prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims