n. 33, 96 S.Ct. 984. In the course of preparing for “the initiation of the criminal process and for a trial,” a prosecutor may be required to obtain, review, and evaluate evidence. Id. “At some point, and with respect to some decisio bility for the knowing use of false testimony at trial. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431, 96 S.Ct. 984. A prosecutor’s decision not to preserve or turn over exculpatory material before trial, during trial, or after conviction is a violation of due process under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963). It is, nonetheless, an exercise of the prosecutorial function and entitles the prosecutor to absolute immunity from a civil suit for damages. See, e.g., Imbler, 424 U.S. at 431-32 n. 34, 96 S.Ct. 984 ( 723 F.2d 675, 679 (9th Cir.1984) (<HOLDING>) (citation omitted); Fullman v. Graddick, 739
holding that to consider whether to apply a spoliation sanction the evidence must be relevant to an issue in the case and the party who destroyed the evidence must be under a duty to preserve the evidence holding that an employee whose disability is related to his ability to perform the duties of his position is not disabled under the act and therefore an employer has no duty to accommodate recognizing failure to preserve error by objecting to an inaccurate jury instruction breaches an attorneys duty holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant holding that a district attorneys duty to preserve exculpatory evidence would arise from his role as an officer of the court charged to do justice an act or an omission concerning such a duty cannot be construed as only administrative or investigative it too is necessarily related to the prosecutors preparation to prosecute