the part of Driebilbus to safeguard her from him. Thus, from the record before the court, the court finds that defendant Drie-bilbus’s actions in this case did not create or enhance the danger to Ammy. Therefore, defendant Driebilbus’s motion for summary judgment is granted. 2. Prosecutorial immunity The County defendants contend they are entitled to assert prosecutorial immunity from plaintiff Sophapmysay’s lawsuit because the actions of Kittridge and Lauters were taken in their respective capacities as advocates for the State — Kittridge as the prosecutor in the (use of peremptory challenges in racially discriminatory manner were protected by absolute immunity), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 828, 118 S.Ct. 91, 139 L.Ed.2d 47 (1997); Brodnicki v. City of Omaha, 75 F.3d 1261, 1266 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 519 U.S. 867, 117 S.Ct. 179,
holding that prosecutor was entitled to absolute immunity for reviewing polygraph results to determine whether charges should be dismissed where defense counsel brought polygraph test to prosecutor in order to persuade him to dismiss case 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 the district court abused its discretion in denying the defendants timely motion for the substitution of the participating prosecutor in order to permit the defense to call the prosecutor as a witness holding absolute immunity protects prosecutor from liability for failing to give defense counsel materially exculpatory evidence holding that a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages under  1988 in initiating a prosecution and in presenting the states case including deciding which evidence to present