08-0947-cv

Warney v. Monroe County

1 UNI TEDSTATE S COURT OF APPEALS 2 3 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUI T 4 5 Aug ustTe rm, 20 08 6 (Ar gue d: Jun e 1 , 2 009 Dec ide d: Nov emb er 13, 20 09) 7 8 Doc ketNo . 0 8-0 947 9 10 11 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 12 DOU GLA S WARN EY, 13 14 Pla int iff -Ap pel lee , 15 16 17 - v .- 18 MON ROE CO UNT Y, LARRY BERNST EIN , i n h is 19 20 ind ivi dua l c apa cit y, WEN DY EVANS LEHMAN , i n 21 herin div idu al cap aci ty andMI CHAEL C. 22 GRE EN, inhi s i ndi vidual an d o ffi cia l 23 cap aci tie s, 24 Def end ant s-Appe lla nts , 25 26 27 CIT Y O F ROCH EST ER, SANDRA A DAM S, in her 28 ind ivi dua l c apa cit y, EVE LYNBE AUD RAU LT, in 29 herin div idu al cap aci ty, ST EPH EN EDG ETT , i n 30 his in div idu al cap aci ty, TH OMA S JONE S, in 31 his in div idu al cap aci ty, RO BER T GARLAND , i n 32 his in div idu al cap aci ty, JO HN GRO PP, inhi s 33 ind ivi dua l c apa cit y, JOHN D OE OFF ICE RS 34 AND /ORDE TEC TIVES # 1 -10 , i n t hei r 35 ind ivi dua l c apa cit ies an d R ICHARDRO E 36 SUP ERV ISO RS # 1 -10 , i n t hei r i ndi vidual 37 cap aci tie s, 38 39 Def end ant s. 40 41 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x 422

Bef ore : JAC OBS , C hie f Judg e, NEWMANan d P OOL ER, 1 2 Cir cui t Judg es. 3 4 App eal bypr ose cut ors fr om den ial ofth eirmo tio n f or 5 abs olu te or qua lif iedimmun itybyth e U nit ed Sta tes Di str ict 6 Cou rt forth e W est ernDi str ictofNe w Y ork(L ari mer , J .) in 7 a s uital leg ingth at the ex cul pat oryre sul t o f p ost -tr ial 8 DNAte sti ng, co ndu cte d b y t he dis tri ct att orn ey’ s o ffi ce 9 whi le def end ingha bea s a nd oth er ini tia tiv es, wa s n ot timely 10 dis clo sedtopl ain tif f D oug las Wa rne y, whowa s i n j ail fo r a 11 mur derth at theDNA t est ingul tim ate ly sho wedhe di d n ot 12 commit . Bec aus e t he tes tin g w as und ert ake n i n c onn ect ion 13 wit h p ost -tr ial pr oce edi ngs an d w as the ref ore in teg ral to 14 the advoc acyfu nct ion , w e h oldth at the pr ose cut ors en joy 15 abs olu te immuni ty und er Imb lerv. Pa cht man , 4 24 U.S . 4 09, 16 430 –31 (1 976 ). Re ver sed . 17 18 MIC HAE L E . DAVI S, Sec ondDe put y 19 Cou ntyAt tor ney , f or DAN IELM. 20 De LAU S, JR. , M onr oe Cou nty 21 Att orn ey, Ro che ste r, NY, fo r 22 Def end ant s-Appe lla nts . 23 24 DEB ORAH L . C ORNWAL L, (Pe terJ. 25 Neu fel d, Sar ah Cro wle y, on the 26 bri ef) , C och ranNe ufe ld & 27 Sch eck , L LP, Ne w Y ork , N Y, for 28 Pla int iff -Ap pel lee . 29 30 Ste venA. Be nde r a nd Ant hon y J .3 1 Ser vin o, forDa nie l M . D ono van , 2 Pre sid entofth e D ist ric t 3 Att orn eys As soc iat ionofNe w 4 Yor k S tat e, foram icu s 5 cur iae Di str ictAt tor ney s 6 Ass oci ati on of NewYo rk Sta te, 7 in sup por t o f D efe nda nts 8 App ell ant s. 9 10 11 DENNIS JACOB S, Chi ef Jud ge: 12 13 Thr ee pro sec uto rs of Mon roe Co unt y a ppe al fro m d eni al 14 of the ir mot ionfo r a bso lut e o r qual ifi ed immuni ty by the 15 Uni tedSt ate s D ist ric t C our t f or the We ste rn Dis tri ct of New 16 Yor k ( Lar ime r, J.) ina sui t a lle gin g t hatth e e xcu lpa tor y 17 res ultofpo st- tri al DNAte sti ng, co ndu cte d b y t he dis tri ct 18 att orn ey’ s o ffi ce whi le def end ingha bea s a nd oth er 19 ini tia tiv es, wa s n ot timelydi scl ose d t o p lai nti ff, wh o w as 20 in jai l f or a murd er tha t t he DNAte sti ng ult ima tel y s how ed 21 he didno t c omm it. B eca use th e t est ingwa s u nde rta kenin 22 con nec tio n w ithpo st- tri al pro cee din gs andwa s t her efo re 23 int egr al to theadvoc acyfu nct ion , w e h oldth at the 24 pro sec uto rs enj oy abs olu te immuni ty und er Imb lerv. 25 Pac htm an, 42 4 U .S. 40 9, 430 –31 (1 976 ). 26 Pla int iffDo ugl as War neywa s w ron gfu llyco nvi cte d a nd 27 jai ledfo r t en yea rs. H e s ues a numberofin div idu als (a nd 28 gov ernmen t e nti tie s) forvi ola tin g h is con sti tut ion al4 1 rig hts . Thi s a ppe al con sid ers on ly iss ues be ari ng upo n t he 2 lia bil ityan d i mmu nit y o f t hre e M onr oe Cou ntypr ose cut ors 3 forfa ili ng to dis clo se exc ulp ato ry DNAte st res ult s 4 pro mpt ly. 5 Aft er War ney ’s con vic tio n, dur ingth e p end enc y o f h is 6 fed era l h abe as cor pus pe tit ionan d h is app eal fr om a s tat e7 cou rt dec isi on den yin g h im acc ess toDNA e vid enc e, the 8 Mon roe Co unt y D ist ric t A tto rne y’s of fic e a rra nge d t he DNA 9 tes tin g o f c rime s cen e e vid enc e. Th e r esu lts sh owe d t hat 10 all no n-v ict im blo od sample s c oll ect ed at the sc ene ofth e 11 cri me wer e f romon e man, wh o w as notWa rne y. Us ingth e DNA 12 res ult s, thepr ose cut ors id ent ifi ed the ma n who act ual ly 13 commit tedth e murd er, advis ed War ney ’s cou nse l, int erv iew ed 14 the ne w s usp ecttoco nfi rm tha t W arn ey was no t i nvo lve d, and 15 the n a chi eve d W arn ey’ s e xon era tio n. Wa rne y a lle ges th at his 16 con sti tut ion al rig hts we re vio lat ed bec aus e a t l eas t 7 2 d ays 17 ela pse d b etw eenth e d ate th e p ros ecu tor s l ear nedofth e DNA 18 tes t r esu lts an d t he dat e t heyin formedWa rne y o r h is 19 cou nse l. 20 Thi s a ppe al requir es us to con sid er the sc ope of 21 abs olu te pro sec uto ria l i mmu nit y i n t he pos t-c onv ict ion 22 con tex t.5 1 2 BACKGR OUND 3 We setou t o nlyth e f act s t hatbe ar upo n t he 4 dis pos iti on of thi s a ppe al. S inc e t his is anin ter loc uto ry 5 app eal fr om thede nia l o f amo tio n t o d ism iss , w e a cce pt as 6 tru e a ll wel l-p ledfa ctu al all ega tio ns, an d d rawal l 7 rea son abl e i nfe ren ces inth e p lai nti ff’ s f avo r. Se e 8 Ash cro ft v. Iqb al, 12 9 S . C t. 193 7, 194 9 ( 200 9) (ci tin g B ell 9 Atl . C orp . v . T wombly , 5 50 U.S . 5 44, 55 5 ( 200 7)) . 10 A. The M urder. InJa nua ry 199 6, Wil liam B eas on was 11 fou nd dea d i n h is ran sac kedap art men t o n C hil i Aven ue in 12 Roc hes ter , N ew Yor k b y o ffi cer s o f t he Roc hes terPo lic e 13 Dep art men t ( “RP D”) . In Bea son ’s bat hro om, th ey fou nd a 14 blo ods tai nedkn ife , abl ood y t owe l, anda blo odyti ssu e. 15 The RP D l ift ed sev era l f ing erp rin ts fro m t wo por nog rap hic 16 vid eot apebo xes fo undinth e b edr oom , a nd one pa rti al pri nt 17 fro m t he kni fe. T he aut ops y s how ed nin ete en sta b w oun ds to 18 Bea son ’s nec k a nd che st, al l o f t hemco nsi ste nt wit h t he 19 blo odykn ifefo undinth e b ath roo m, andde fen siv e w oun ds on 20 Bea son ’s lef t h and . Blo od evi den ce was co lle cte d f romhi s 21 fin ger nai ls. T hus itap pea redth at Bea sondi ed aft er a 22 vio len t s tru ggl e, andth at the pe rpe tra torwa s c ut andha dB eas on andWa rne y h ad a “ pas sin g a cqu ain tan ce. ” 1 (Co mpl ain t ¶ ¶ 3 7–3 8.) O n o cca sio n, Bea sonha d h ire d W arn ey to cle an his ho usean d s hov el sno w f romhi s d riv ewa y. (I d.)

6 1 gon e i ntoth e b ath roo m t o c lea n b loo d o ff him sel f w ithth e 2 tow el andth e t iss ue. 3 Aft er Bea son ’s mur derwa s r epo rte d i n t he pre ss, 4 Dou gla s W arn ey cal ledth e R PD “Cr ime sto ppe rs hot lin e” and 5 ref ere nce d t he mur der . War neyha d a n I Q o f 6 8, an eig hth

6 gra de edu cat ion , a nd ful l-b low n A IDS . (Co mpl ain t ¶ 37 .) It 7 is notcl earwh at War neysa id, bu t h e a lle ges th at he sai d 8 tha t h e “ kne w o f” Bea son . An R PD off ice r w enttoWa rne y’s 1 9 apa rtmenttosp eaktohi m. Th e c omp lai nt all ege s t hatth e 10 RPDwa s a war e t hatWa rne y h ad mad e n ume rou s c ran k c all s t o 11 the po lic e ( forwh ichhe ha d r ece ive d p syc hia tri c 12 ass ist anc e), an d t his of fic er in par tic ula r h ad res pon dedto 13 War ney ’s compla int s a bou t d rugac tiv ityinhi s a par tme nt 14 bui ldi ng. ( Id. ¶ 39. ) War neyto ld thi s o ffi certh at he was 15 con cer nedab outhi s n ame be ingbr oug ht up in con nec tio n w ith 16 the mu rde r o f a“W ill iam ” o n C hil i Aven ue. 17 Twoda ys lat er, RP D d ete cti ves pi cke d u p W arn ey at his 18 apa rtmentan d b rou ghthi m t o t he pol ice st ati on. T heypu t 19 himina sma ll off icean d i nte rro gat ed him , u sin gI n t he fir st ver sio n, War neyimpli cat ed his co usi n. 2 In the se con d, War neyad dedth at he andhi s c ous in wen t tog eth er to Bea son ’s home. Inth e t hir d, War neyan d h is cou sinto get herst abb ed Bea son . In the fo urt h, ref lec tedin the typew rit tenst ate men t, his co usi n w as no lon gerpr ese nt, andWa rne y c onf ess ed to mur der ingBe aso n a lon e. (C omp lai nt ¶ 5 1.)T hes e f act s i ncl ude d: (1) Be aso n w as coo kin g

3 bar beque chi cke n a nd mas hedpo tat oes atth e t ime he wa s kil led ; ( 2) Bea sonwa s w ear inga redan d whit e s tri ped nig hts hir t; (3) Be aso n w as sta bbe d m ore th an fif tee n t ime s wit h atw elv e-i nchse rra tedkn ife ; ( 4) Bea son ’s thr oatwa s sli t; (5) Be aso n’s bo dy was fo undonhi s b ed andhi s e yes wer e o pen ; ( 6) theas sai lan t c ut him sel f a nd ble d i n t he apa rtment ; ( 7) theas sai lan t w ipe d h is wou nd wit h t iss ue pap er, wh ichhedi sca rde d i n t he toi let ; ( 8) the as sai lan t putin ten siv e c arelo tio n o n h is wou nd; an d ( 9) the ba ck doo r a nd bas eme nt doo r w ere lo cke d a nd the fr ontdo or of the hou se loc ks aut oma tic all y. (C omp lai nt ¶ 5 3.) T he compla int all ege s t hatth e d ete cti ves “d eli ber ate ly fai ledtodi scl ose 7 1 “es cal ati ng coe rci ve tac tic s” inc lud ingve rba l a bus e, and 2 phy sic al andot herth rea ts, “i n o rde r t o f orc e h im to adm it 3 tha t h e c omm itt ed themu rde r.” ( Id. ¶ 47. ) Aft er ini tia l 4 den ial s, War neyev ent ual ly “yi eld ed to [th e] coe rci ve 5 tac tic s a nd pro vid ed at lea st fou r w ild ly dif fer entve rsi ons 6 of eve nts toth e p oli ce. ” (Id . ¶ ¶ 5 0-5 1.) 2 7 In an ens uin g t ype wri tte n “ con fes sio n,” th e d ete cti ves 8 inc lud ed numero us non -pu bli c f act s a bou t t he mur derkn own 9 onl y t o t he pol icean d t he rea l k ill er, fa cts wh ich(i t i s 10 nowkn own ) W arn ey cou ld notpo ssi blyha ve kno wn. ( Id. ¶ 11 52. ) Acc ord ingtoth e c omp lai nt, th ere we re 3to the pr ose cut or andtode fen se cou nse l t he mat eri al

exc ulp ato ry fac t t hatth ey fedth e n on- pub licde tai ls of the cri me to Mr. Wa rne y.” ( Id. ¶ 67. ) T he inc ons ist enc ies ar e t hat : ( 1) War ney ’s 4 con fes sio n s ays th at he kil ledBe aso n d own sta irs , a nd dra gge d h im up to thebe dro om; (2 ) W arn ey’ s s tat eme nt sai d he dro ve his br oth er’ s C hev rol et to Bea son ’s hou se, ev en tho ughWa rne y’s br oth er doe s n ot owna car ; a nd (3) Wa rne y’s han ds hadnocu ts or bru ise s, eve n t hou gh his co nfe ssi on say s h e g ot cutan d b ledatth e s cen e. (C omp lai nt ¶ 6 2.) A t 5 :30 p. m., th e d ete cti ves to ok War neytoth e 5 “Pu bli c S afe ty Bui ldi ng, ” a nd pla cedhi m i n ase cur ed int erv iewro om to “el ici t f urt herfa lse co nfe ssi ons an d cor rob ora te the[i nit ial ] f als ifi ed con fes sio n.” ( Compla int ¶ 5 7.) I n t his se con d “ con fes sio n,” Wa rne y w as sai d t o h ave vol unt eer ed ano the r d eta il men tio nedinth e c rime s cen e rep ort s–- tha t p orn ogr aph ic vid eo tap es fea tur inga whi te mal e a nd His pan ic mal e w ere fo undinBe aso n’s be dro om- -an d tha t h e a nd Bea sonha d w atc hedth e t ape to get herbe for e t he mur der . (Id . ¶ 58 .) 8 1 “in con sis ten cie s” in War ney ’s sta tementth at ren der ed it 2 who llyimpla usi ble . 4 3 War neysi gne d t he con fes sio n a nd ini tia ledmi nor 4 cha nge s l ess th an fou r h our s a fte r h e h ad bee n p ick ed up. 5 5 Acc ord ingtoth e c omp lai nt, af terWa rne y’s “c onf ess ion ” t he 6 pol ice pe rfo rme d n o f urt herin ves tig ati on oth er tha n t ryi ng 7 to det erm inewh eth er War ney ’s cou sinco uldha ve bee n a n 8 acc omp lic e. No tab ly, th e l ate nt fin ger pri nt col lec tedfr om 9 a p orn ogr aph ic vid eot ape bo x w as notru n t hro ughth eIfth e f ing erp rin t h ad bee n r un, as itla terwa s, it 6 wou ld hav e matc heda mannamedEl dre d J ohn son . Joh nso n’s fin ger pri nts we re in the da tab ase as ofJa nua ry 199 6 ( dueto cri mes heco mmi tte d i n 1 994 ). (C omp lai nt ¶¶ 63, 77 .) Th e u nid ent ifi ed pri nt lat er mat che d E ldr ed Joh nso n. 7 See su prano te 6. 9 1 sta tew ideda tab ase . ( Id. ¶ 63. ) 6 2 B. The T ria l. Cer tai n b loo d e vid enc e a t t he sce ne was 3 fou nd to exc lud e b othWa rne y a nd Bea son ; s o W arn ey was 4 cha rge d b othas a pri nci pal an d a n a cco mpl ice . At tri al, 5 how eve r, thepr ose cut ion ’s onl y t heo ry was th at War ney 6 commit tedth e murd er alo ne, an d t he pro sec uti on’ s c ase 7 res ted“a lmo st exc lus ive ly” onWa rne y’s co nfe ssi on. 8 (Co mpl ain t ¶ ¶ 7 9-8 0.) 9 At tri al, a c hem istte sti fie d t hatth e b loo d o n t he 10 mur derwe apo n w as con sis ten t w ithth e v ict im’ s T ype O, bu t 11 inc ons ist entwi th War ney ’s Typ e A ; a nd the bl ood sta ins on 12 the to wel an d t iss ue bel ong ed nei the r t o B eas on norWa rne y. 13 (Itfi t n eit herofth eir“e nzyme typ es. ”) (Co mpl ain t ¶ 74 .) 14 Of thr ee lat entpr int s f romth e p orn ogr aph ic vid eot ape 15 box es, tw o b elo nge d t o B eas on, an d t he thi rd was 16 uni den tif ied , mean ingitbe lon gedtone ith er Bea sonno r 17 War ney . Ase con d f ing erp rin t s pec ial istex ami neda par tia l 7 18 pri nt fro m t he mur derwe apo n, andfo undon ly “th ree po int s10 1 of compar iso n,” bu t c onc lud ed tha t W arn ey was a pos sib le 2 sou rce ofth e p rin t. (H e a lsosp eci fic all y e xcl ude d 3 Bea son .) (I d. ¶ 7 8.) 4 War neyte sti fie d t o h is inn oce nce an d a bou t t he thr eat s 5 fro m t he pol iceth at mad e h im con fes s. 6 On Feb rua ry 12, 19 97, th e j uryco nvi cte d W arn ey of two 7 cou nts ofse con d-d egr ee mur der . On Feb rua ry 27, he wa s 8 sen ten cedto25 ye ars toli fe. T he jud gme nt was af firmedon 9 app eal , P eop le v. War ney , 2 99 A.D .2d95 6, 750 N. Y.S .2d73 1 10 (4t h D ep’ t 2 002 ), andbe came f ina l whenth e N ew Yor k C our t 11 of App eal s d eni ed lea ve to app eal onMa rch4, 20 03, 99 12 N.Y .2d63 3, 790 N. E.2 d 2 89 (20 03) . 13 C. Po st- Convic tion Proceeding s. I n May 200 4, War ney 14 fil ed a f ede ral ha bea s c orp us pet iti on und er 28 U.S .C. § 15 225 4 i n t he Uni tedSt ate s D ist ric t C our t f or the We ste rn 16 Dis tri ct of NewYo rk, Wa rne y v . M cGi nni s, No. 04 -cv -62 02( L) 17 (fi ledMa y 4 , 2 004 ), a f ili ng of whi ch we tak e j udi cia l 18 not ice . War neyth ere aft er beg an see kin g a cce ss to 19 bio log ica l e vid enc e f romth e murd er sce ne in ord er to 20 con duc t DNA tes tin g t hathe be lie vedwo uldex one rat e h im. 21 War ney ’s att orn ey reques tedac ces s t o t he evi den ce so as to 22 per form DNA tes tin g a t h is ownexpen se, bu t t he Mon roe11 1 Cou ntyDi str ictAt tor ney ’s off ice re fus ed con sen t. 2 (Co mpl ain t ¶ 91 .) 3 In Oct obe r 2 004 , W arn ey mov ed und er NewYo rk Sta te’ s 4 pos t-c onv ict ionst atu te, N. Y. Cri m. Pro c. Law44 0.3 0(1 -a) 5 (Mc Kin ney20 04) (t he “44 0 m oti on” ), see kin g a cce ss to the 6 blo od evi den ce fou nd at the cr ime sc ene . The 44 0 m oti on 7 sou ghtac ces s t o, int er ali a, blo od fou nd on the mu rde r 8 wea pon(whic h h ad bee n t est ed alr ead y), an d b loo d f oun d o n 9 the vi cti m’s fi nge rna ils (whic h h ad notbe en tes tedbe for e). 10 The Mo nro e C oun ty Dis tri ct Att orn ey’ s O ffi ce, 11 rep res ent ed by Dis tri ct Att orn ey Mic hae l C . G ree n a nd 12 Ass ist antDi str ictAt tor neyWe ndyEv ans Le hma n, opp ose d t he 13 440 mo tio n, bot h i n w rit ingan d a t ahe ari ng on Nov emb er 15, 14 200 4 b efo re NewYo rk Sta te Sup reme C our t Just ice Fr anc is A. 15 Aff ron ti. ( Compla int¶ 93. ) At the he ari ng, th e D ist ric t 16 Att orn ey’ s o ffi ce arg uedth at War neyha d n ot est abl ish ed due 17 dil ige nce , a nd tha t t he rea son s u nde rly inghi s r equ estfo r 18 acc ess toth e b loo d e vid enc e w ere sp ecu lat ive . (Id .) 19 The 44 0 m oti on was de nie d i n a n o rde r i ssu ed Dec emb er 20 15, 20 04, onth e g rou nds th at DNAte sti ng “wo uldno t p rov ide 21 evi den ce whi ch is sig nif ica ntl y d iff ere nt fro m t hat 22 submit tedtoth e j urywh ichco nvi cte d [ War ney ],” an d t hatA t o ral ar gument , W arn ey’ s c oun sel ma int ain ed tha t 8 the DNA t est ingwa s d est ruc tiv e, suc h t haton ce tes ted , t he blo od sample s c oul d n ot be ret est ed. 12 1 the re que st was ba sedon“c onj ect ure . . . to o s pec ula tiv e 2 andimpro bab le. ” (Id . ¶ 94 .) Wa rne y a ppe ale d t o t he 3 App ell ateDi vis ion . 4 D. DNA

Te sti ng and

Exone ration . I n F ebr uar y 2 005 , 5 whi le theMo nro e C oun ty Dis tri ct Att orn ey’ s o ffi ce was 6 opp osi ng War ney ’s app eal fr om the de nia l o f h is 440 mo tio n, 7 andwh ileWa rne y’s fe der al hab eas pe tit ionwa s s til l 8 pen din g, Sec ondDi str ictAt tor neyLa rryBe rns tei n s ubm itt ed 9 forDNA t est ingth e b loo d e vid enc e t hatwa s t he sub jec t o f 10 War ney ’s 440 mo tio n–- a t ota l o f s eve n s amp les , i ncl udi ng the 11 blo od fou nd und er thevi cti m’s fi nge rna ils an d o n t he mur der 12 wea pon . Ber nst eindi d s o w ithth e a uth ori zat ionofth e 13 Dis tri ct Att orn ey, an d w ith outin formin g t he sta te or 14 fed era l c our t, War ney , o r W arn ey’ s a tto rne y. ( Id. ¶ 95. ) 8 15 War neyal leg es tha t, “[u ]po n i nfo rma tio n a nd bel ief , 16 def end ant s G ree n, Ber nst ein , L ehm an, an d o the rs in the DA ’s 17 off ice re cei veda ver bal re por t o f t he DNAte st res ult s f rom 18 the Mo nro e C oun ty Pub licSa fet y L abo rat oryas ea rlyas 19 200 5.” ( Id. ¶ 97 (empha sis ad ded )). T he compla intdo es not 20 saywh en in 200 5 t he all ege d v erb al rep ortwa s r ece ive d, or13 1 wha t i t c ont ain ed oth er tha n t hatitwa s “ exc ulp ato ry. ” 2 (Id .) 3 On Feb rua ry 17, 20 06, ap pro xim ate ly one ye ar aft er 4 submit tin g t he evi den ce to be tes ted , t he Dis tri ct 5 Att orn ey’ s o ffi ce rec eiv ed a w rit tenla bor ato ry rep ort 6 sho win g t hatea ch of the se venbl oodsampl es submit ted 7 mat che d asi ngl e p rof ile ofa manwh o w as nei the r B eas on nor 8 War ney . There sul ts of the te sti ng wer e n ot immedi ate ly 9 dis clo sedtoWa rne y o r h is law yer . 10 Twowe eks la ter , o n Marc h 2 , 2 006 , t he pro sec uto rs 11 lea rne d m ore : ase arc h o f t he FBI ’s Combin ed DNAIn dex ing 12 Sys tem(C ODI S) dat aba se mat che d t he pro fil e t o ama n n ame d 13 Eld redJo hns on, wh o h ad bee n c onv ict ed of mur der , a s w ell as 14 sev era l s las hin gs andbu rgl ari es, an d who was th en ser vin g a 15 lif e s ent enc e i n U tic a, NewYo rk. 16 The di str ictat tor ney s t ookth e a ddi tio nal st ep of 17 ord eri ng examin ati on of the un ide nti fie d f ing erp rin t f oun d 18 on the po rno gra phi c v ide ota pe box . On Mar ch 24, 20 06, an 19 evi den ce tec hni cia n f romth e R PD det erm ine d t hatth e 20 fin ger pri nt als o matc hedEl dre d J ohn son . 21 The DNA t est ingre sul ts andth e f ing erp rin t m atc h w ere 22 dis clo sedtoWa rne y f or the fi rstti me on May1, 20 06, wh en14 1 Mon roe Co unt y a tto rne ys inf ormed War ney ’s cou nse l t hat 2 War neyha d b eenex clu dedas th e s our ce of the bl ood 3 evi den ce, th oug h t heydi d n ot adv ise th at all th e p rev iou sly 4 uni den tif iedbl oodwa s f romth e s ame ma n. Fr om Feb rua ry 17, 5 200 6 t o May 1, 200 6 i s ape rio d o f 7 2 d ays . 6 On May11 , 2 006 , t he Dis tri ct Att orn ey’ s o ffi ce 7 int erv iew ed Eld redJo hns on, wh o p romptl y c onf ess ed to the 8 mur derofBe aso n. Jo hns on sai d t hathe ha d a cte d a lon e, and 9 didno t k nowDo ugl as War ney . The ne xt day , t he Dis tri ct 10 Att orn ey’ s o ffi ce inf ormed War ney ’s cou nse l o f J ohn son ’s 11 con fes sio n. Fo ur bus ine ss day s a fte r t he con fes sio n ( May 12 16, 20 06) , o n a ppl ica tio n o f t he Mon roe Co unt y D ist ric t 13 Att orn ey’ s o ffi ce, Wa rne y’s mu rde r c onv ict ionwa s v aca ted . 14 In vac ati ng War ney ’s con vic tio n, Jus tic e V an Str ydo nck 15 poi nte d o ut tha t t he inc ons ist enc ies inth e b loo d e vid enc e, 16 (i. e . , t he pre sen ce of a t hir d s our ce of blo od) wa s k now n a t 17 the ti me of tri al: “t he ‘ne wlyfo undev ide nce ’ i s n ot the 18 fac t t hata thi rd per son ’s blo od was fo undatth e s cen e . . 19 . [ or] th at Mr. Wa rne y’s co nfe ssi on was in con sis ten t i n m any 20 imp ort antwa ys wit h t he fac ts dev elo pedbyth e p oli ce and 21 the pr ose cut or’ s o ffi ce. T hos e i nco nsi ste nci es wer e k now n 22 by the de fen se andar gue d t o t he jur y. Ra the r t he new lyTh e c omp lai nt named Gre en in bot h h is ind ivi dua l 9 cap aci ty andhi s o ffi cia l c apa cit y a s D ist ric t A tto rne y. 15 1 dis cov ere d e vid enc e i s t he con fes sio n o f M r. Eld red 2 Joh nso n.” 3 War neywa s r ele ase d f rompr iso n, andEl dre d J ohn son 4 lat er ple ade d g uil ty to the Be aso n murd er. 5 E. Thi s Laws uit . War neyfi ledsu it und er 42 U.S .C. 6 § 1 983 ag ain st numero us def end ant s, inc lud ingth e C ityof 7 Roc hes ter ; M onr oe Cou nty ; v ari ous po lic e o ffi cer s a nd 8 det ect ive s; andth reepr ose cut ors inth e M onr oe Cou nty 9 Dis tri ct Att orn ey’ s o ffi ce: Mi cha el Gre en, La rryBe rns tei n, 9 10 andWe ndyEv ans Le hma n. 11 The co mpl ain t i nit ial ly ple ade d t hre e c lai ms rel ati ng 12 to the pr ose cut ors : ( 1) a due pro ces s c lai m f or badfa ith 13 den ial ofpo st- con vic tio n a cce ss to bio log ica l e vid enc e a nd 14 DNAte sti ng (Co untVI , whic h h as sin ce bee n w ith dra wn as to 15 the in div idu al pro sec uto rs) ; ( 2) a due pro ces s c lai m f or 16 fai lin g t o p romptl y d isc los e m ate ria l e xcu lpa tor y e vid enc e 17 (Co untVI I, whi ch is at iss ue on thi s a ppe al) ; a nd (3) 18 a c lai m a gai nstMo nro e C oun ty (Co untIX , u nde r M one ll v. 19 Dep art men t o f S oci al Ser vic es, 43 6 U .S. 65 8 ( 197 8)) , f or 20 hav inga cus tomorpo lic y o f w ith hol din g b iol ogi cal ev ide nceA s t o t he Mon ell cl aim , M onr oe Cou ntyur gedth at 10 the cl aimre lat ed onl y t o a cts un der tak en by the Di str ict Att orn ey in his pr ose cut ori al cap aci ty, an d i n t hatca pac ity a D ist ric t A tto rne y a cts as anag entofth e S tat e o f N ew Yor k, notas anag entofa par tic ula r c oun ty. H owe ver , t he cou rt diddi smi ss all cl aim s a gai nst 11 Gre en in his of fic ial ca pac itybe cau se it fou nd suc h c lai ms wer e s ubs ume d b y t he Mon ell cl aimag ain st Mon roe Co unt y. 16 1 in badfa ith , a nd fai lin g t o p romptl y d isc los e e xcu lpa tor y 2 inf orm ati on. 3 Def end ant s G ree n, Ber nst ein , a nd Eva ns Lehman , a nd 4 Mon roe Co unt y m ove d t o d ism iss al l c oun ts aga ins t t hemon 5 gro und s o f a bso lut e p ros ecu tor ial immun ity , qual ifi ed 6 immuni ty, an d f ail uretost ate a cla im und er Mon ell . B y 10 7 Dec isi on andOr derda tedFe bru ary11 , 2 008 , t he dis tri ct 8 cou rt den iedth e d efe nda nts ’ m oti on to dis mis s i n a ll 9 res pec ts. I n s ummary , t he dis tri ct cou rt con clu dedth at 11 10 the pr ose cut ors we re act inginan“i nve sti gat ive ” c apa cit y 11 whe n t heysu bmi tte d t he DNAev ide nce fo r t est ingan d when 12 the y l ate r w ith hel d t he res ult s, andth ey wer e t her efo re not 13 ent itl ed to abs olu te immuni ty und er Imb ler , 4 24 U.S . a t 14 430 –31 . Theco urtfu rth er con clu dedth at the pr ose cut ors 15 wer e n ot ent itl ed to qua lif iedimmun itybe cau se rea son abl e 16 pro sec uto rs sho uldha ve kno wn tha t f ail ingtodi scl ose 17 compel lin g e xcu lpa tor y i nfo rma tio n f or a p eri od of at lea st17 1 72 day s v iol ate d acl ear ly est abl ish ed, su bst ant ive du e 2 pro ces s r igh t. 3 The pr ose cut ors an d M onr oe Cou ntyap pea l. 4 5 DIS CUS SION 6 Whe n adi str ictco urtde nie s i mmu nit y o n aRu le 7 12( b)( 6) mot iontodi smi ss, “w e r evi ew the di str ictco urt ’s 8 den ial deno vo, ac cep tin g a s t rue th e m ate ria l f act s a lle ged 9 in the co mpl ain t a nd dra win g a ll rea son abl e i nfe ren ces in 10 pla int iff s’ fav or. ” Joh nso n v . N ewb urg h E nla rge d S cho ol 11 Dis t., 23 9 F .3d24 6, 250 (2 d C ir. 20 01) . 12 We hav e j uri sdi cti on to rev iewa den ial ofqu ali fie d 13 immuni ty und er theco lla ter al ord er doc tri ne if the de nia l 14 “‘t urn s o n a n i ssu e o f l aw. ’” Iqbal , 1 29 S. Ct. at19 46 15 (qu oti ng Mit che ll v. For syt h, 472 U. S. 511 , 5 30 (19 85) ). 16 I 17 The Su pre me Cou rt fir st ack now led gedth e a bso lut e 18 immuni ty of pro sec uto rs to § 1 983 su its inImble r v . 19 Pac htm an, 42 4 U .S. 40 9 ( 197 6). T he Cou rt rel iedona common 20 lawtr adi tio n o f p ros ecu tor ial immun ity , a s w ell as st ron g 21 pol icyco nsi der ati ons th at sup por tedex ten din g i mmu nit y t o 22 the § 198 3 c ont ext : “ A p ros ecu toris du ty bou nd to exe rci se18 1 his be st judgme nt bot h i n d eci din g whic h s uit s t o b rin g a nd 2 in con duc tin g t heminco urt . The pu bli c t rus t o f t he 3 pro sec uto r’s of fic e w oul d s uff er if he wer e c ons tra ine d i n 4 mak ingev eryde cis ionbyth e c ons equ enc es in terms of his 5 ownpo ten tia l l iab ili ty in a s uitfo r d ama ges .” Imble r, 424 6 U.S . a t 4 24– 25. 7 Imb lerde fin ed the sc ope ofpr ose cut ori al immuni ty not 8 by the id ent ityofth e a cto r, butbyre fer enc e t o t he 9 “fu nct ion ” p erf ormed. I d. at 430 . Tho se act s t hatar e 10 “in tim ate ly ass oci ate d w ithth e j udi cia l p has e o f t he 11 cri min al pro ces s” wou ld be shi eld ed by abs olu te immuni ty, 12 butno t “ tho se asp ect s o f t he pro sec uto r’s re spo nsi bil ity 13 tha t c asthi m i n t he rol e o f a n a dmi nis tra toror 14 inv est iga tiv e o ffi cerra the r t hanth at of adv oca te. ” Id. at 15 430 -31 . 16 Thu s, to est abl ishimmun ity , t he “ul tim ate qu est ion ” i s 17 “wh eth er thepr ose cut ors ha ve car rie d t hei r b urd en of 18 est abl ish ingth at the y w ere fu nct ion ingas ‘a dvo cat es’ wh en 19 the y e nga gedinth e c hal len gedco ndu ct. ” Doe v. Ph ill ips , 20 81 F.3 d 1 204 , 1 209 (2 d C ir. 19 96) . “A pro sec uto r’s 21 adm ini str ati ve dut ies an d t hos e i nve sti gat oryfu nct ion s t hat 22 do notre lat e t o a n a dvo cat e’s pr epa rat ionfo r t heI mbl er spe cif ica llyav oid ed the po st- con vic tio n 12 con tex t. Se e I mbl er, 42 4 U .S. at43 1 ( “We ho ld onl y t hatin ini tia tin g apr ose cut ionan d i n pre sen tin g the St ate ’s cas e, the pr ose cut or is immune fr om a c ivi l s uitfo r d ama ges un der § 1 983 .” (empha ses ad ded )). 19 1 ini tia tio n o f apr ose cut ionorfo r j udi cia l p roc eed ing s a re 2 noten tit ledtoab sol ute immun ity .” Bu ckl ey v. Fit zsi mmo ns, 3 509 U. S. 259 , 2 73 (19 93) ; s ee als o P ark ins on v. Coz zol ino , 4 238 F. 3d 145 , 1 50 (2dCi r. 200 1) (“T he cas es thu s d rawa 5 lin e b etw eenth e i nve sti gat ive an d a dmi nis tra tiv e f unc tio ns 6 of pro sec uto rs, wh ichar e n ot pro tec tedbyab sol ute 7 immuni ty, an d t he adv oca cy fun cti ons ofpr ose cut ors , whic h 8 are sopr ote cte d.” ). 9 Dra win g t his li ne bet wee n “ adv oca cy” an d 10 “in ves tig ati ve” fu nct ion s i s v exe d, per hap s n o m ore soth an 11 in the po st- con vic tio n c ont ext . F or onc e aco nvi cti on 12 12 bec ome s f ina l, the re is no lon gera pen din g a dve rsa ria l 13 cri min al pro cee din g; the “j udi cia l p has e” is tec hni cal ly 14 fin ish ed. Y et, byth e n atu re of the ir off ice , p ros ecu tor s 15 wil l n ece ssa ril y r ema in inv olv ed in cri min al cas es: op pos ing 16 civ il hab eas pe tit ion s ( or oth er forms of col lat era l 17 rel ief ); ame ndi ng res tit uti on ord ers ; p urs uin g p aro le 18 vio lat ion s; or res olv ingdi spu tes ov er a p ris one r’s 19 pro jec tedre lea se dat e. Th ese fu nct ion s m ay be somewh at20 1 adm ini str ati ve, an d may notal way s r ela te to in- cou rt 2 adv oca cy, ye t o fte n t heyar e i nte gra l t o a n o ngo ing 3 “ju dic ial ph ase ” o f apr ose cut ion . 4 Con fro nte d w ithqu est ion s a bou t t he sco pe of abs olu te 5 pro sec uto ria l i mmu nit y p ost -co nvi cti on, fe der al app ell ate 6 cou rts ha ve str ess ed dif fer entas pec ts of the an aly sis , a nd 7 come t o a ppa ren tlyco nfl ict ingre sul ts. C omp are Ho ust on v. 8 Par tee , 9 78 F.2 d 3 62, 36 6 ( 7thCi r. 199 2) (noab sol ute 9 immuni ty whe re pro sec uto rs wer e “ notpe rso nal ly pro sec uti ng 10 the ap pea l” in pos t-c onv ict ionpr oce edi ngs ), wit h C art er v. 11 Bur ch, 34 F. 3d 257 , 2 63 (4t h C ir. 19 94) (a bso lut e i mmu nit y 12 whe re pro sec uto r “ was ha ndl ingth e p ost -co nvi cti on mot ion s 13 andth e i nit ial di rec t a ppe al . . . [an d t hus ] s til l 14 fun cti oni ng as an adv oca te forth e S tat e”) . Mos t r ece ntl y, 15 the Th irdan d S ixt h C irc uit s h ave su gge ste d t hatab sol ute 16 immuni ty sho uldex ten d t o p ost -co nvi cti on con duc t s o l ongas 17 the pr ose cut or cansh ow tha t a n a dvo cac y f unc tio n w as bei ng 18 per formed . SeeYa rri s v . C oun ty of Del awa re, 46 5 F .3d12 9, 19 137 (3 d C ir. 20 06) (“ Aft er a c onv ict ionis ob tai ned , t he 20 cha lle nge d a cti on mus t b e s how n b y t he pro sec uto r t o b e p art 21 of the pr ose cut or’ s c ont inu ingpe rso nal in vol vementas th e 22 sta te’ s a dvo cat e i n a dve rsa ria l p ost -co nvi cti on pro cee din gs21 1 to be enc omp ass ed wit hinth at pro sec uto r’s ab sol ute immun ity 2 fro m s uit .”) ; S pur loc k v . T hompso n, 330 F. 3d 791 , 7 99 (6t h 3 Cir . 2 003 ) ( “[a ]bs olu te immuni ty app lie s t o t he adv ers ari al 4 act s o f p ros ecu tor s duri ng pos t-c onv ict ionpr oce edi ngs . . . 5 whe re thepr ose cut or is per son all y i nvo lve d . . . a nd 6 con tin ues hi s r oleas anadvoc ate ,” but“wher e t he rol e a s 7 adv oca te has no t y et beg un . . . or whe re it has co ncl ude d, 8 abs olu te immuni ty doe s n ot app ly. ”). 9 Our Court has not addressed the scope of immunity 10 enjoyed by prosecutors in collateral proceedings; but we 11 have held that absolute immunity extends to actions taken 12 while working on direct appeals. Par kin son , 2 38 F.3 d a t 13 151 –52 . As we wrote in Parkinson: 14 We nowjo in the se cou rts inho ldi ng tha t 15 abs olu te immuni ty cov ers pr ose cut ors ’ 16 act ion s a fte r t he dat e o f c onv ict ion 17 whi le a d ire ct app eal is pe ndi ng. W e 18 exp res s n o o pin ionas towh en suc h 19 immuni ty end s; the pr ose cut ors ’ a cti ons 20 in thi s c ase oc cur redwh ile [t he 21 def end ant ’s] di rec t a ppe al was pe ndi ng, 22 andwe ha ve lit tle di ffi cul ty ext end ing 23 abs olu te immuni ty tha t f ar. [FN 5 ] 24 25 [FN5] Sp eci fic all y, bec aus e t he fac ts of 26 thi s c ase dono t r ais e t he iss ue, we do 27 notde cid e whet herab sol ute immun ity 28 ext end s t o c oll ate ral pr oce edi ngs , s uch 29 as hab eas pe tit ion s. 30 31 238 F. 3d at 152 & n.5 .22 1 II 2 On the fa cts ofth is cas e, we mus t n ow dec ide wh eth er, 3 andho w, abs olu te immuni ty ext end s t o p ros ecu tor s w ork ingon 4 pos t-c onv ict ionco lla ter al pro cee din gs. W e s ee no 5 pri nci ple d r eas on to wit hho ld abs olu te immuni ty forwo rk 6 per formedinde fen din g aco nvi cti on fro m c oll ate ral at tac k. 7 As we not ed in Par kin son , t her e i s l ang uag e f romso me 8 Sup reme C our t d eci sio ns to the ef fec t t hat“a bso lut e 9 immuni ty app l[i es] to‘a cts un der tak en by a p ros ecu torin 10 pre par ingfo r t he ini tia tio n o f j udi cia l p roc eed ing s o r f or 11 tri al. ’” 23 8 F .3dat15 1 ( quo tin g B uck ley , 5 09 U.S . a t 12 273 ). Bu t “ [s] uchla ngu age . . . do es notse rve to 13 del ine ateth e e ndp oin t o f i mmu nit y. Rat her , i t s imp ly 14 und ers cor es thefa ct tha t a bso lut e i mmu nit y d oes no t a ppl y 15 to the in ves tig ato ry dut ies ofa pro sec uto r, tha t i s, it 16 ser ves toes tab lis h t he sta rti ng poi nt of suc h i mmu nit y.” 17 Id. (e mph ase s i n o rig ina l). 18 Alt hou gh a c oll ate ral at tac k i s t ech nic all y ase par ate , 19 civ il pro cee din g, a p ros ecu torde fen din g apo st- con vic tio n 20 pet iti on remain s t he sta te’ s a dvo cat e i n a n a dve rsa ria l 21 pro cee din g t hatis anin teg ral pa rt of the cr imi nal ju sti ceS ee U.S . C ons t. art . I I, § 9 , c l. 2 ( “Th e p riv ile ge 13 of the wr it of hab eas co rpu s s hal l n ot be sus pen ded , u nle ss whe n i n c ase s o f r ebe lli on or inv asi on the pu bli c s afe ty may requir e i t.” ). 23 1 sys tem . T he con sid era tio ns tha t m ili tat e i n f avo r o f 13 2 abs olu te immuni ty forwo rk don e a t t ria l o r o n a ppe al are 3 jus t a s r ele van t i n t he con tex t o f aco lla ter al pro cee din g. 4 A p ost -co nvi cti on pet iti on oft en pre sen ts the same kin ds of 5 leg al iss ues as th e u nde rly ingcr imi nal ca se, re qui res th e 6 same k ind s o f l ega l j udgmen ts, an d c all s u ponth e s ame ki nds 7 of adv oca cy ski lls an d meas ure s. Of tenth e s ame pr ose cut or 8 whoco ndu cte d t he tri al wil l o ppo se the po st- con vic tio n 9 cha lle nge . 10 Sev era l c our ts hav e a lre adyhe ld, orsu gge ste d, tha t 11 abs olu te immuni ty shi eld s w orkpe rfo rme d b y p ros ecu tor s 12 opp osi ng hab eas pe tit ion s. Se e, e.g ., Spu rlo ck, 33 0 F .3dat 13 799 (“ Abs olu te immuni ty app lie s t o t he adv ers ari al act s o f 14 pro sec uto rs dur ingpo st- con vic tio n p roc eed ing s, inc lud ing 15 dir ectap pea ls, ha bea s c orp us pro cee din gs, an d p aro le 16 pro cee din gs, wh ereth e p ros ecu toris pe rso nal ly inv olv ed in 17 the su bse que nt pro cee din gs andco nti nue s h is rol e a s a n 18 adv oca te. ”); Summe rs v. Sjo gre n, 667 F. Su pp. 14 32, 14 34 (D. 19 Uta h 1 987 ) ( a p ros ecu torwh o a lle ged ly fil ed fal se doc ume nts24 1 in opp osi tio n t o aha bea s p eti tio n “ doe s n ot los e i mmu nit y 2 mer elybe cau se shewa s a cti ng in a p ost -co nvi cti on 3 set tin g”) . We joi n t hes e c our ts in hol din g t hatab sol ute 4 immuni ty shi eld s w orkpe rfo rme d duri ng a p ost -co nvi cti on 5 col lat era l a tta ck, atle astin sof ar as the ch all eng ed 6 act ion s a re par t o f t he pro sec uto r’s ro le as an adv oca te for 7 the st ate . 8 III 9 Hav inges tab lis hedth at abs olu te pro sec uto ria l i mmu nit y 10 mayex ten d t o a dvo cac y w orkpe rfo rme d i n t he pos t-c onv ict ion 11 con tex t, we mus t d ete rmi ne whe the r s uchimmun ityis 12 war ran tedinth is cas e. 13 The an swe r d epe nds inpa rt on whe the r o ne loo ks at the 14 pro sec uto rs’ di scr eteac tio ns, oratth eirro le andfu nct ion 15 in an ong oin g p roc eed ing . If one fo cus es on the DNA 16 tes tin g, thepr ose cut ors ’ c onductmi ghtbe cl ass ifi ed as 17 inv est iga tiv e; if onefo cus es on the ac t o f d ela yin g 18 dis clo sur e, thepr ose cut ors ’ c onductmi ghtbe cl ass ifi ed as 19 adm ini str ati ve, orpo ssi blyin ves tig ati ve; ifon e f ocu ses on 20 the op pos iti on to War ney ’s 440 mo tio n a nd hab eas pe tit ion , 21 the pr ose cut ors ’ c onductmi ghtbe cl ass ifi ed as pur e 22 adv oca cy.Wa rne y v olu nta ril y w ith dre w h is cla im rel ati ng to 14 bad -fa ithde nia l o f a cce ss to evi den ce. I ts val idi ty wou ld, in anyev ent , b e c all ed int o ques tio n b y t he Sup reme C our t’s rec entde cis ioninDi str ictAt tor ney ’s Off ice fo r t he Thi rd Jud ici al Dis tri ct v. Osb orn e, 129 S. Ct . 2 308 , 2 322 (2 009 ) (fi ndi ng no sub sta nti ve due pr oce ss rig ht to DNAev ide nce pos t-c onv ict ion ). 25 1 The district court, which focused on the testing and 2 the delay in disclosure, declined to extend absolute 3 immunity because it considered the prosecutors’ actions to 4 be “investigatory . . . no different than [] law enforcement 5 officials’ acts in obtaining and allegedly suppressing 6 favorable evidence.” 7 War neydo es notco mpl ainth at the pr ose cut ors or der ed 8 the te sti ng; af teral l, tha t t est ingis wh at ledtohi s 9 rel eas e. No r i s W arn ey compla ini ng (he re) ab outth e d eni al 10 of acc ess tote st theDNA f or him sel f. N or is he 14 11 compla ini ng of non -di scl osu re of the te st res ult s-- 12 dis clo sur e w as mad e. Wa rne y’s na rro w f ocu s i s 13 (un der sta nda bly ) o n t he spe cif ic actth at cau sedhi s h arm : 14 the fa ilu re to dis clo se the DNA r esu lts pr omp tly . 15 For the following reasons, we conclude that it is 16 unhelpful to ascertain the prosecutors’ functional role by 17 isolating each specific act done or not done; rather, a 18 prosecutor’s function depends chiefly on whether there is26 1 pending or in preparation a court proceeding in which the 2 prosecutor acts as an advocate. 3 Unless the DNA testing is considered with reference to 4 context, it is impossible to classify functionally. If the 5 testing inculpated Warney, it would be a potent tool of the 6 advocacy; if it exculpated Warney, it might be deemed 7 administrative, in the sense that it would entail 8 disclosure; if it inculpated someone else, it would be 9 investigative, at least to the extent that it might identify 10 the real killer. But the steps taken here--testing, 11 disclosure, and even the delay in making disclosure, as well 12 as the identification of the real killer–-were integral to 13 and subsumed in the advocacy functions being performed in 14 connection with Warney’s post-conviction initiatives. The 15 decisions made by the prosecutors in this case--whether to 16 test for potentially inculpatory (or exculpatory) 17 information, how and when to disclose or use that 18 information, and whether to seek to vacate Warney’s 19 conviction--were exercises of legal judgment made in the 20 “judicial phase” of proceedings integral to the criminal 21 justice process. 22 The DNA testing obviously would have bearing on the27 1 advocacy work of deciding whether to oppose Warney’s 2 initiatives. A prosecutor has an affirmative obligation, 3 before filing an opposition, to ensure that the petition 4 should in fact be opposed. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11(b) (“By 5 presenting to the court a pleading . . . an attorney . . . 6 certifies that to the best of the person’s knowledge . . . 7 the factual contentions have evidentiary support.”). The 8 proper and useful focus for ascertaining the function being 9 served by a prosecutor’s act is therefore on the pendency of 10 court proceedings that engage a prosecutor as an advocate 11 for the state. 12 The Supreme Court recently taught us that a prosecutor 13 enjoys absolute immunity even when doing an administrative 14 act if the act is done in the performance of an advocacy 15 function. Van de Kamp v. Goldstein, 129 S. Ct. 855 (2009). 16 In Van de Kamp, the plaintiff had won habeas relief because 17 the government failed to disclose at trial, as required by 18 Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150 (1972), that a 19 jailhouse informant had previously received reduced 20 sentences for providing favorable testimony. In a § 1983 21 suit, the plaintiff alleged that the Los Angeles County 22 District Attorney (and other prosecutors) failed to28 1 establish information-sharing systems concerning jailhouse 2 informants, and failed to train prosecutors on how to share 3 such information. The Ninth Circuit denied the prosecutors 4 absolute immunity, on the theory that the alleged failures 5 were more “administrative” than “prosecutorial.” 6 See Goldstein v. Long Beach, 481 F.3d 1170, 1171–72 (9th 7 Cir. 2007). In reversing, the Supreme Court held that the 8 “administrative” tasks at issue (establishing information9 sharing systems and training attorneys on how to share 10 information) were “‘intimately associated with the judicial 11 phase of the criminal process.’” Van de Kamp, 129 S. Ct. at 12 864 (quoting Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430). The Court explained: 13 Here, unlike with other claims related to 14 administrative decisions, an individual 15 prosecutor’s error in the plaintiff’s 16 specific criminal trial constitutes an 17 essential element of the plaintiff’s 18 claim. The administrative obligations at 19 issue here are thus unlike administrative 20 duties concerning, for example, workplace 21 hiring, payroll administration, the 22 maintenance of physical facilities, and 23 the like. Moreover, the types of 24 activities on which Goldstein’s claims 25 focus necessarily require legal knowledge 26 and the exercise of related discretion, 27 e.g., in determining what information 28 should be included in the training or the 29 supervision or the information-system 30 management. And in that sense also 31 Goldstein’s claims are unlike claims of, 32 say, unlawful discrimination in hiring29 1 employees. Given these features of the 2 case before us, we believe absolute 3 immunity must follow. 4 5 Id. at 862. Just as the administrative act in Goldstein was 6 integral to an advocacy function, we conclude that the 7 prosecutors’ actions here--which could be seen as 8 administrative or investigative--were also integral to the 9 overarching advocacy function of dealing with post-trial 10 initiatives challenging an underlying criminal conviction: 11 they “require[d] legal knowledge and the exercise of related 12 discretion.” Id. 13 If the conduct challenged by Warney had occurred during 14 Warney’s trial, that is, if the prosecutors had tested all 15 the evidence, and then sat on the exculpatory results for at 16 least 72 days, they may well have violated Brady v. 17 Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963); but they would be absolutely 18 immune from personal liability. See, e.g., Jones v. 19 Shankland, 800 F.2d 77, 80 (6th Cir. 1986) (a prosecutor’s 20 “non-disclosure of exculpatory information [is] certainly 21 entitled to absolute immunity”). The reason that is so is 22 that the disclosure of evidence to opposing counsel is an 23 advocacy function. 24 The disclosure decision in this case is advocacyRu le 3.8 ofth e Amer ica n B ar Ass oci ati on Mod el Rul es 15 of Pro fes sio nal Co ndu ct rea ds:

(g) Wh en a p ros ecu torkn ows ofne w, cre dib le andma ter ial ev ide nce cr eat inga rea son abl e l ike lih oodth at a c onv ict ed def end antdi d n ot commitanof fen se of whi ch the de fen dan t w as con vic ted , t he pro sec uto r s hal l: (1) pr omp tlydi scl ose th at evi den ce to an app rop ria te cou rt or aut hor ity , a nd ( 2 ) i f t he con vic tio n w as obt ain ed in the pro sec uto r’s ju ris dic tio n, (i) pr omp tlydi scl ose th at evi den ce to the de fen dan t u nle ss a c our t aut hor ize s d ela y, and (ii ) u nde rta ke fur the r inv est iga tio n, or mak e r eas ona ble ef for ts to cau se an inv est iga tio n, to det erm ine whe the r t he def end antwa s c onv ict ed of an off ens e t hatth e d efe nda nt didno t commit . (h) Wh en a p ros ecu torkn ows ofcl earan d con vin cin g e vid enc e e sta bli shi ng tha t a 30 1 notwithstanding that the evidence would likely terminate the 2 ongoing post-conviction proceedings in favor of the 3 petitioner. The advocacy function of a prosecutor includes 4 seeking exoneration and confessing error to correct an 5 erroneous conviction. Thus prosecutors are under a 6 continuing ethical obligation to disclose exculpatory 7 information discovered post-conviction. Any narrower 15def end antinth e p ros ecu tor ’s jur isd ict ionwa s c onv ict ed of an off ens e tha t t he def end antdi d n ot commit , t he pro sec uto r s hal l s eektore med y t he con vic tio n.

31 1 conception of a prosecutor’s role would be truly alarming. 2 The prosecutors are therefore entitled to absolute 3 immunity in this lawsuit. On the facts of this case, we 4 need not, and do not, decide whether absolute immunity 5 extends to prosecutorial conduct regarding DNA evidence, 6 occurring after a prisoner’s appeals and collateral attacks 7 have been exhausted. Moreover, because we extend absolute 8 immunity in this case, we do not address the prosecutors’ 9 alternative argument that they are entitled to qualified 10 immunity. 11 IV 12 Affording absolute immunity in this context, with the 13 resulting dismissal of Warney’s claim against the 14 prosecutors, does not deprecate the duty of prosecutors to 15 prevent unjust imprisonment. Indeed, absolute immunity is 16 afforded in part because we conclude that the duty is a part 17 of the prosecutor’s advocacy function. This outcome affords 18 no incentive for concealment. A civil law suit is not a 19 necessary enforcement mechanism for ensuring that32 1 prosecutors disclose exculpatory information promptly. 2 Prosecutors remain ethically bound to disclose exculpatory 3 information, and, in extreme cases of intentional 4 suppression, prosecutors may be subject to criminal 5 liability. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 428–29 (“We emphasize 6 that the immunity of prosecutors from liability in suits 7 under § 1983 does not leave the public powerless to deter 8 misconduct or to punish that which occurs. This Court has 9 never suggested that the policy considerations which compel 10 civil immunity for certain governmental officials also place 11 them beyond the reach of the criminal law.”). 12 Moreover, the availability of absolute immunity in this 13 context will likely encourage prosecutors in the future to 14 seek exculpatory information post-trial. Absolute immunity 15 of prosecutors is grounded in the fear that the “public 16 trust of the prosecutor’s office would suffer if [the 17 prosecutor] were constrained in making every decision by the 18 consequences in terms of his own potential liability in a 19 suit for damages.” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 424-25; see also 20 Kalina v. Fletcher, 522 U.S. 118, 125 (1997) (“[I]t is the 21 interest in protecting the proper functioning of the office, 22 rather than the interest in protecting its occupant, that is33 1 of primary importance.”). “ To be sur e, thi s i mmu nit y d oes 2 lea ve thege nui nel y w ron gedde fen dan t w ith outci vil re dre ss 3 aga ins t apr ose cut or who se mal ici ous ordi sho nes t a cti on 4 dep riv es himofli ber ty. B ut the al ter nat ive ofqu ali fyi ng 5 a p ros ecu tor ’s immuni ty wou ld dis ser ve the br oad er pub lic 6 int ere st. Itwo uldpr eve nt the vi gor ous an d f ear les s 7 per forman ce of thepr ose cut or’ s dutyth at is ess ent ial to 8 the pr ope r f unc tio nin g o f t he cri min al jus tic e s yst em. ” 9 Imbler, 424 U.S. at 427-28 . Prosecutors facing tough 10 choices as to whether or not to seek exculpatory information 11 post-conviction should not have to fear personal liability 12 in the event that issues are raised later as to the 13 evaluation and disclosure of what is learned during the 14 pendency of post-conviction proceedings. Such a peril would 15 be an incentive to avoid exculpatory inquiries. 16 V 17 Fin all y, Mon roe Co unt y a rgu es tha t W arn ey’ s c lai m 18 aga ins t i t s hou ld hav e b eendi smi sse d b eca use th e c lai m 19 rel ate s s ole ly to act ion s u nde rta kenbyth e M onr oe Cou nty 20 pro sec uto rs in the ir “pr ose cut ori al” ca pac ity , a nd 21 pro sec uto rs act inginth at cap aci ty are ag ent s o f t he Sta te 22 of NewYo rk, no t a gen ts of the pa rti cul ar cou nty . See ,34 1 e.g ., Bae z v . H enn ess y, 853 F. 2d 73, 77 (2 d C ir. 19 88) . 2 Alt ern ati vel y, Mon roeCo unt y a rgu es tha t W arn ey has fa ile d 3 to ide nti fy an und erl yin g c ons tit uti ona l d epr iva tio n t o 4 sup por t acl aimun derMo nel l, 436 U. S. 658 . 5 Unl ike th e o rde r d eny ingimmun ity , t he ord er den yin g 6 Mon roe Co unt y’s mo tio n t o d ism iss is no t i mme dia tel y 7 app eal abl e p urs uan t t o t he col lat era l o rde r d oct rin e. Se e 8 Coo per s & Lybra nd v. Liv esa y, 437 U. S. 463 , 4 68 (19 78) 9 (un derth e c oll ate ral or derdo ctr ine , a n a ppe lla te cou rt may 10 notex erc iseju ris dic tio n wher e a n o rde r d oes no t 11 “co ncl usi vel y d ete rmi ne the di spu tedqu est ion ”). Mon roe 12 Cou ntyas ks us to exe rci se pen den t a ppe lla te jur isd ict ion ; 13 butinth is Cir cui t w e e xer cis e p end entap pel lat e 14 jur isd ict ionon ly “ov er an ind epe nde nt butre lat ed que sti on 15 tha t i s ‘ ine xtr ica blyin ter twi ned ’ w ithth e [ app eal abl e 16 iss ue] oris ‘n ece ssa ry to ens ure me ani ngf ul rev iew ’ o f t hat 17 iss ue. ” Kal ucz ky v. Cit y o f Whit e P lai ns, 57 F. 3d 202 , 2 07 18 (2dCi r. 199 5) (qu oti ng Swi nt v. Chambe rs Cou ntyCo mm’ n, 514 19 U.S . 3 5, 51 (19 95) ). Th e e lement s o f aMo nel l c lai m, and 20 the ex ten t t o whic h p ros ecu tor s i n N ew Yor k a re age nts of 21 the st ate(a s o ppo sedtoa cou nty ) a re notin ext ric abl y 22 int ert win ed wit h t he que sti on of abs olu te immuni ty. W e35 1 the ref orede cli ne to exe rci se pen den t a ppe lla te jur isd ict ion 2 ove r t hes e i ssu es at thi s t ime . 3 4 CONCLUSION 5 Forth e f ore goi ng rea son s, the or derofth e d ist ric t 6 cou rt ins ofa r a s i t d eni ed abs olu te immuni ty to the th ree 7 Mon roe Co unt y p ros ecu tor s i s r eve rse d, andth e c ase is 8 rem and ed forfu rth er pro cee din gs con sis ten t w ithth is 9 opi nio n.