Park's defense team, and her subsequent refusal to testify. 13 . Thompson cites one case, Smiddy v. Varney, 803 F.2d 1469 (9th Cir. 1986), to support her argument that the prosecutor’s actions broke the chain of causation between her phone call and Ayala’s refusal to testify. Smiddy, however, is inapposite for several reasons. First, that case deals only with post-trial calculation of damages rather than the existence of a cause of action. See id. at 1473 ("[T]he independent act of the prosecutor four days after Smiddy’s arrest, unless shown to have been improperly influenced by the police officers, cut off further liability for damages suffered thereafter.”). Second, Smiddy applies to “negligent conduct,” not to intentional misconduct by law enforcement officers. See id. at 1471, 1473 (<HOLDING>). Third, Smiddy dealt with a Section 1983 claim
holding that allegations of influence by an unnamed person outside the jury required the holding of an evidentiary hearing to determine extrinsic influence holding leave to amend should be freely granted absent a showing of undue delay bad faith undue prejudice or futility recognizing that pressure undue influence or knowing misstatements by police could  extend the chain of causation holding that equally consistent circumstances of influence cannot be considered as evidence of undue influence recognizing that factors such as physical and mental condition of the maker of the instrument at the time of its execution including age any weakness or infirmity are probative evidence of undue influence