at 2618. Applying these holdings here, we conclude that Valder’s prosecutorial immunity insulates him from liability for his unquestionably advocatory decision to prosecute Moore. His prosecutorial immunity also protects Valder from liability for allegedly concealing exculpatory evidence from the grand jury and for allegedly manipulating evidence before the grand jury to create a false impression of what Moore knew about the alleged fraudulent schemes. Valder’s decisions regarding what evidence to put before the grand jury, and in what manner, are advocatory because they are central to the prosecutor’s task of “initiating a prosecution” and “presenting the State’s case.” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. at 996; see also Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653, 661-62 (2nd Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). In addition, withholding after indictment
holding absolute immunity protects prosecutor from liability for withholding exculpatory evidence from grand jury recognizing that withholding of exculpatory evidence by police is imputed to the prosecution holding the prosecutor is required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury holding absolute immunity protects prosecutor from liability for failing to give defense counsel materially exculpatory evidence