good morning runners and may it please the court i'm david wilson on behalf of the county of los angeles if an act by a prosecutor is protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity and eleventh amendment immunity then the policies that govern that or governor affect that act al  are protected by eleventh amendment immunity this is because there's no real meaningful analytical distinction between the act of a prosecutor and the policies governing an act for example in the los angeles county district attorney's office it's a very large office and the acts of the prosecutors must be governed by policies that are created by people who are higher up the ladder in the district attorney's office otherwise the district attorney has no control over what goes on that have been referenced in the community cases and in the policy analysis by this court and by the california supreme court this distinction must be preserved and the only way to preserve it is to provide the policy provide a level of amendment protection community protection for the policy makers as well as for the act itself is a natural consequence of your theory that in california there could never be a nine hundred eighty three case for selective prosecution policymaker it is the policy makers were acting on behalf of the state and the reason i reckin behalf of the state is because they were creating policies to govern how how cases are presented to juries and that's not really all of it numbs case we're on behalf of the state well i understand your argument on that but if the county is not claiming eleventh amendment in the unity which it is not then how can we consider how do we have appellate jurisdiction to consider your argument you don of who is responsible for the injury to the plaintiff is the eleventh amended immunity analysis because the policy makers who are acting in the district attorney's office to formulate the policies have immunity problems with well i don't think it does pose jurisdictional problems because the analysis of how of who is responsible for plaintiff injury is and is an eleventh amended immunity analysis is not  the issue it has nothing to do with the school osing information by the line get p d in the courtroom this case is about dissemination of information a filing system so  within the county district attorney's office will the strongest sales a mis representation well your honor we have a different take on the news i didn't hear him misrepresent anything to the court will i apologize if the court believes that strong but we have emphasized repeatedly and the district court has embraced that this has this is not based on disclosing in for information this is based on dissemination choice of characterization of what you think it's based on it's start slicing thing that send us your characterization but to say the other side is making misrepresents patients the courts a little bit stronger i apologize for your honor but the issue is not disclosure the issue is discrimination the issue is about is that ultimately disclosure because the cause alan a requirement well the causality requirement is not required in the immunity out analysis the immunity analysis asks the court to focus on the character of the conduct that is the button at the end of the day you have to shock shown why how the palm policy cause injury to your client and then you get into the dissemination option on your honor the end of the day we need to show ca sality to have a cause of action we need to have that show causality to be able to get damages but buckley v fitzsimmons but in the united states supreme court specifically said the focus is on the conduct it is not on the harm the obligation to get your honor is to make sure that one hand of the of the prosecutor's office knows what the other hand is doing that's with us and yes i think it only says it has a dual making ultimately manifests in disclosing disclosing impeachment information to the court and first to the prosecutor then to the court and then to the defendant but the it gives creates prosecutorial offices in order to ensure that the kind of injustice that occurred there would not occur again that there was the dissemination information that there was no hiding of the ball and that's exactly what occurred in this case focus is whether this is a intimately associated with the judicial system this court  because it says it has to deal with a particular prosecution so biased or an ongoing prosecution we don't have that in this case we have a office that is forming a policy with regard to dissemination of information about the house improper informants prior to any type of prosecution particularly prior to the prosecution of mr goldstein prior to the injury event even occurring the goal of them from being zealous advocates in this case we don't have that whatsoever in this case it doesn't have any effect on the prosecutor in the courtroom because that prosecutor was in fact in the dark because this is antithetical to the principles of prosecutorial immunity the da in the courtroom did not have the opportunity to exercise his discretion and therefore he was precluded to use his judgment which if using his judgment possibly in that with that issue that would be something that could be a mute immune from liability every line of case has a functional analysis even the case that the county seems to embrace the most which is the california supreme court of pits even in that case focuses on functional analysis preparing to prosecute prosecuting cases and that's not what we have here that is and that what we have here is  situation where a a large prosecutor's office within a municipality who has a mandate from the supreme court to create some kind of central index to create some kind of system to to make sure that information is disseminated that that they've made a decision not in the courtroom but on a almost on administrative level as if it were a filing system they didn't do it and the injustice the manifest from that is profound because  was never an ability to challenge the key witness that link mr goldstein to the victim is it no one ever said that mr goldstein had any relationship with the victim except this jailhouse informant who received forty three days in custody for his third or fourth felony and no one knew this he was able to say this directly to the jury it wasn't the prosecutor's fault in the courtroom it was the administration of the office it was the policymaking of that office which was at fault and the emphasis of the of the county consistently has been worse look at the point of injury and as as your art judge thomas emphasize prior to that and to be read is always to focus on the conduct that's what i provided to the court through our twenty a j letter that that the entire premise of the reply brief of the county is incorrect what what the focus should be is not what happened in the courtroom that we every case ultimately that where there's liability for wrongful prosecution ultimately ends up in the courtroom because that's the context in which that the sentence is repacking that's what the the entire array of cases caucus on and we're not talking about the d a s conduct within the court for we're not talking about the d a prior preparing to file a case we're not talking about in presenting information  the grand jury that characterization of it of those aspects of the d a s function in the courtroom or preparing to prosecute is not aware about and when and those are the functions which case will show should the state driven as a prosecutorial function what we're talking about is in multiple layers before that we're talking about dissemination of information administrative conduct that's where we are and that is activity once they made that determination then they did their analysis and found there was immunity through but you want him to tell us why you are wrong when you say the primary that's correct he needs to be so tell us why and if i just my last point your honor the only photo the only argument that the county has made to support the prosecutorial nature is ultimately the manifestation of that conduct in the courtroom they always evade the actual the actual conduct alleged in the first amended complaint which is dissemination of information failure to educate personnel within the district attorney's office which didn't necessarily lead always to prosecution it also leads to investigation this court is held in milstein's the coolie and in multiple other cases that's an awfully long argument beyond you the trial during if the act that the injured mr mr goldstein is an act that is protected by absolute prosecutorial immunity therefore the policymaking relating to that is protected by eleventh amendment immunity if that's not the standard the standard the push by the plaintiffs is adopted then every policy is administrative every policy limits the discretion of prosecutors in the courtroom every policy is formed prior to any particular prosecution and it's not aimed at any particular between prosecutors policies and administrative policies it preserves the eleventh commandment and absolute prosecutorial immunity of prosecutors if the players position is adopted then any place that any criminal defendant who's injured your case you have this is the county can be considered the state simply because some of the officers who work for the county may also be considered state employees for certain functions no you're right and that's not an argument well that is your argument on the half the