Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the composite tape is demonstrated by a July 11, 1994 letter written by Attorney Collins, who represented the City at the Civil Service Commission hearing, to Attorney Li-chten, Cignetti's counsel at the hearing. In that letter, Attorney Collins states that the tape was "made as part of the investigation.” The defendants’ have, moved to strike the letter. The motion is denied as moot. Although the letter itself has little or no evidentiary value, the defendants, as discussed above, have not established that they were engaging in prosecutorial functions when they prepared the tape. 8 . Several other Courts of Appeals have adopted similar exceptions to the broad immunity recognized in Briscoe v. LaHue. See Harris v. Roderick, 126 F.3d 1189 (9th Cir.1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 11 (<HOLDING>); see also Palma v. Atlantic County, 53 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that disputed issues of fact as to whether officer who allegedly gave false testimony before a grand jury could be considered a complaining witness prevented summary judgment (B) recognizing that absolute immunity is immunity from charges of either constitutional or statutory violations (C) 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 (D) holding that absolute immunity does not extend to a complaining witness who initiated a baseless prosecution by giving false testimony at either a grand jury proceeding or preliminary hearing (E) holding that a prosecutor accused of knowingly presenting false testimony at trial is protected by absolute immunity
Output (English): 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