evidence during the preliminary investigation of a crime and made false statements at a press conference announcing the indictment of the petitioner. The Court held that the prosecutors did not have absolute blishing that absolute immunity protects him from potential liability for the other instances of misconduct alleged by Moore. Intimidating and coercing witnesses into changing their testimony is not advocatory. It is rather a misuse of investigative techniques legitimately directed at exploring whether witness testimony is truthful and complete and whether the government has acquired all incriminating evidence. It therefore relates to a typical police function, the collection of information to be used in a prosecution. See, e.g., Barbera v. Smith, 836 F.2d 96, 100 (2d Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis original). “When a prosecutor
holding that hgn evidence is scientific and therefore must satisfy the pertinent delaware rules of evidence governing the admission of such evidence holding that opinion where product is entitled to nearly absolute protection with some limited exceptions holding acquiring evidence which might be used in a prosecutionin contradistinction to organization evaluation and marshalling of such evidence is activity of police nature and is therefore not entitled to absolute protection holding that when prosecutors joined in implementing the wiretap they engaged in an act that was ordinarily related to police activity and were not entitled to absolute immunity holding that opinion work product is entitled to nearly absolute protection with limited exceptions