Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): direct violation of trial court orders); see also Imbler, 424 U.S. at 425-r26, 96 S.Ct. 984 (recognizing that the decisions concerning the materiality of evidence not revealed to the defense could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials). Furthermore, Cignetti’s attempt to defeat the defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity by fashioning his claim in terms of a conspiracy is not effective. See Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139, 1148 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653, 659 n. 2 (2d Cir.1995)) (“[W]hen the underlying activity at issue is covered by absolute immunity, the ‘plaintiff derives no benefit from alleging a conspiracy.’ ”); Dory v. Ryan, 25 F.3d 81, 83-84 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as discussed more extensively 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for their knowing or inadvertent failure to disclose materially exculpatory evidence (B) holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims (C) holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983 (D) recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability (E) holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony
Output (English): holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983