2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

8-4-2008 

# O dd v . M alone

P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-4287

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin
. C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" O dd v . M alone " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 607. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/607P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N o. 06- 4287 N o. 07- 1490

KOR VE L ODD,

v. THO M AS M ALO NE; OF F I CE OF DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A,

A p p e llan ts

NI COLE S CHNEYDER, A ppel l ant

v. G I N A SM I T H , E s qui r e; OF F I CE OF DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y OF P HI L ADE L P HI A,2 O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D

. C

. N os . 06- cv- 02242/ 06- cv- 04986) D istric t Ju d g e s: H o n o ra b le N o rm a L . S h a p iro a n d H o n o ra b le Ja n E . D u b o is

A r gued J anuary8, 2008 B e f o re : F IS H E R , H A R D IM A N a n d A L D IS E R T , C irc u it

Judges

. ( Fi l ed: A ugus t4, 2008) D ani el Si l verm an ( A r gued) Si l verm an & A s s oci at es 1429 W al nutSt r eet , Sui t e 1001 Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102 A t t or ney f

orAppel l ee O dd A t t or ney f

orAppel lantSchney der R onal d E i s enber g ( A r gued) T h ree S o u th P en n S q u are Phi l adel phi a, PA 19107 A t t or ney f

orAppel lant

s Thom as Mal one a n d O ffi c e o f D istric t A tto rn e

y o f P h ila d e lp h ia A t t or ney f

orAppel l ees G i na Sm i th a n d O ffi c e o f D istric t A tto rn e

y o f P h ila d e lp h ia3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

H A R D IM A N , C i r cui tJudge

. T h ese cons ol i dat ed appe al s conce rn the s cope of p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i ty. I n b o th c a s e s , p r o s e c u t i n g a t t o rn e ys ob t ai ned ben c h w a rrant s t o d et ai n m at eri al w i tnesses w ho se t es t i m onyw as vi t al t o m ur derpr os ec ut i ons . A l though the a tto rn e y s d ili g e n tlyo b tain e d th e w a rra n ts, th e yn e g lec ted to keep the court s i nform ed of the pr ogr es s of the cr i m i nal pr ocee di ngs and the cus t odi al s t atus of the w i tnes ses. The q u e stion befo re us i s w hether the at t orney s are enti t l ed to a b s o lu te p ro s e c u to ri a l im m u n ity f o r t h e iro m is s io n s . I n N o. 07- 1490, w e deci de w hethera pr os ecut orm aybe s ued under42 U

. S. C

. § 1983 forfai l ing to not i fythe r el evant author i t i es thatthe pr ocee di ngs i n w hi ch the det ai ned i ndi vi dual w as t o t es t i fyhad bee n cont i nued for near l y fourm onths

. I n N o. 06- 4287, w e dec i de w hethera pr os ecut or m aybe s ued for fai l i ng t o noti fythe rel evan tauthori t i es that the m at eri al w i tness r emai ned i ncar cer at ed af t erthe ca s e i n w hi ch he w as t o t es t i fy had bee n di s m i s s ed. I. B eca us e w e r evi ew the D i s tr i ctC our t s ’ ru li n g s on Feder al Rul e of Ci vi l Pr ocedur e 12( b) ( 6) m ot i ons t o di s m i s s , our4 r e c i t a t i on of

the fa c t s i s l i mi t e d t o tho s e a l l e ge d i n Pl a i nt i ffs’ c o m p la in ts
. Y

arris v. C ou nty of

D el aw are , 465 F. 3d 1 2 9 , 134 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 6 ). W e a c c e p t th o se f a c ts a s tru e a n d d ra w a ll re a s o n a b le in f

e re n c e s in P la in tif

f s ’ f a v o r. Id

. A

. P lai nt i

f f

-Appel lantNi col e Schne yder( N o. 07- 1490 ) N ico le S c h n e y d e r w a s a re lu c tan t b u t e ss e n tial w itn e ss in thr ee a t t empt s bythe C om m onw eal th of Penns y l vani a t o convi ct M ic h a e l O v e rb y o f f

ir s t- d e g re e m u rd e r. See Com m onw eal th v. O ver by , 80 9 A

. 2d 29 5, 29 8-99 ( P a. 20 02 ). In the fir sttw o tr i al s, the courtdecl ar ed Schney derunavai l abl e and a dm i t t ed her s w o rn s ta te m e n t in t o e v id e n c e . Id

. at 29 9

. T h e se co n d jury convi ct ed O verbyand s ent ence d hi m t o death, butthe Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our tor der ed a n ew tr i al , hol di ng that th e h a n d lin g o f S c h n e y d e r’s tes tim o n y v io late d O v e rb y ’s S ix th A m e n d m e n t ri g h t to c o n f ro n t th e w itn e s s e s a g a in s t h im

. Id

. at 2 9 9 -3 0 0

. I n pr epar i ng to p r os ecut e O verbya thi r d t i m e, P h ilad e lp h ia A ss ista n t D istric t A tto rn e y(A D A ) G in a S m ith ob t ai neda mat e r i a l w i tness ben ch w arr ant for Schn ey der’ s arres t fr om J udge R ay for d M eans of the P hi l adel phi a C ounty C our tof C om m on Pl eas . A ft era J anuary27, 2005 b ail hear i ng, Schney der , w ho w as r epr es ent ed b ya publ i c def ender , w as det ai n e d a f

t e rs h e f a i l e d t o p o s tth e $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 b a i l s e tb ythe court
. A t that t i m e, J udge M eans di r ect ed A D A Sm i th i n open c o u r t , a n d a g a i n i n h i s r o b i n g r o o m , t o n o t i f y h i m o f a n y d e l a ys i n t he O ver by cas e, w hi ch w as as s i gned to an otherj udge. Schney der al l eges that J udge M eans m ade c l earthathe i nt ended5 t o r el eas e Schney deri n the eve ntof a c onti n u an ce, and that Sm i th acknow l edged thi s admoni t i on on the r ecor d. O n February2, 2005, the O ver by trial w as c o n tin u e d u n til M a y2 5 , 2 0 0 5

. In sp ite o f th e c o u rt’s d ire c tiv e , S m ith f a iled to not i fyJ udge M eans of the cont i n u a n c e , and Schney derr emai ned i ncar cer at ed. S c h n e y d e r a n d v a rio u s f a m ilym e m b e rs r e p e a ted ly t el ephoned A D A Sm i th r eques t i ng Schney der ’ s r el eas e, but Sm it h t ook no act i on. W hen Schney der ’ s fatherdi ed on February28, 2005, hers i s t erhi r ed att orneyPaul C onw ay , w ho obt ai ned a c our tor derperm i t t i ng Schney dert o at te nd her father ’ s M ar ch 4, 2005 funer al

. A ft er obt ai ni ng the or der , w hi ch perm i t t ed Schney dert o att end onl y a few m i nut es of the fune r al i n handcuf

fs , C onw ayl earned that J udge M eans had i ns truct ed A D A Sm i th t o not i fyhi m i f the O ver by cas e w as co n ti n u ed. C onw aynot i fi ed J udge M eans of the conti n u ance, and S c h n e yd e rw a s p r o m p t l y r e l e a s e d o n M a r c h 2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , 5 4 d a ys aft ers he w as fi r s tdet ai ned and 48 day s aft erthe O ver by case w as cont i nued. B

. P lai nt i

f f

-Appel l ee Korve lO dd ( N o. 06- 4287) K or vel O dd’ s exper i ence w as r emar kabl ys i m i l art o that of N i col e Schney der

. O dd w as r el uct antt o t es t i fyi n the murde r p ro s e c u tio n o f A lv in W a y , J r. See Com m onw eal th v. W ay , M C N o . 0 4 0 3 -5 1 1 8 . O d d h a d w itn e ss e d e v e n ts im m e d iate ly p re c e d in g th e m u rd e r, b u t w h e n su b p o e n a e d to te stif ya t a p r e l i m i n a r y h e a r i n g , h e f a i l e d t o a p p e a r . C o n s e q u e n t l y, Phi l adel phi a A D A T hom as M al one sought a bench w arr antforA “j udge- onl y w arr ant ” re qui r es thatthe i s s ui ng j udge 1 b e in f o rm e d if a n d w h e n th e in d iv id u a l n a m e d in th e w a rra n t is arr es t ed. 6 O dd’ s arr es t
. T he pr es i di ng j udge i n W ay — J udge M ar s ha N ei fi el d of the Phi l adel phi a C our t of C om m on Pl eas — i s s ued a “j udge- onl yw arr ant ” pur s uantt o w hi ch O dd w as arr es t ed on 1 N ovember17, 2004. O dd neverhad a ba i l hear i ng befor e J udge N ei fi el d, but at A D A M al one’ s i ns i s t ence , a tr i al comm i s s i oner or der ed O dd t o r emai n i n cus t ody for W ay ’ s pr el i m i naryhear i ng on D ece m ber7, 2004. O n D ec ember7, 2004, O dd w as tr ans por t ed t o the courthous e, butA D A M al one nevercal l ed hi m t o t es t i fy

. J udge N ei fi el d then di s m i s s ed the ca se ag ainstW ayforl ack of evi dence

. B eca us e M al one neve r i nform ed Judge N ei fi el d that O dd had bee n arr es t ed, s he di d notknow thathe r emai ned det ai ned and t ook no act i on t o r el eas e hi m . C ons equent l y , O dd w as r eturned t o pr i s on. O dd eventual l yr eques t ed as s i s t ance fr om the D efender A s s oci at i on of Phi l adel phi a, a n da tt o rn e yG l enn G i l m an br ought O dd’ s pl i ghtt o J udge N ei fi el d’ s att ent i on. “Furi ous , ” J udge N eifield relea sed O d d af ter 58 d ay s o f in ca rce rati o n o n Jan u ary 13, 2005, and s he “demanded that [M al one] appea r befor e her to e x p la in w h y. . . p la in tif f h a d b e e n f

o rc e d to re m a in in ja il.” I n addi t i on t o thei r cas e- s peci fi c al l egat i ons , Schney der and O dd fu rt heral l ege that , acc or di ng t o l ocal cus t om and pr act i ce, the s ol e r es pons i bi l i tyfortr acki ng and moni t or i ng theT o the ext entthatSchney derappe als the di s m i s s al of 2 hers t at e l aw cl ai m s , w e af fi r m the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al of th o se c laim s. S c h n e y d e r m e n tio n s th e sta te la w c laim s o n lyin a footnot e i n heropeni ng br i ef, and conse quent l y , w e cons i der a n ya p p e a l r e g a rd in g th o s e c la im s to b e w a iv e d

. John W yeth & B r o. Ltd. v. C

IG N A I nt ’ lC or p. , 1 1 9 F

. 3 d 1 0 7 0 , 1 0 7 6 n . 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 9 7 ). 7 sta tu s o f d e tain e d m a ter ial w itn e ss e s fa lls to th e P h ilad e lp h ia D i s tr i ctA t t orney ’ s O ffi ce ( D A ’ s O ffi ce) and the i ndi vi dual A D A s. C

. T he D istri ctC ou rt

P roceed i ngs S c h n e y d e ra n d Od d s u e d th e DA’ s Of f i c e a n d th e ADAs under42 U

. S. C

. § 1983, al l egi ng thattheyw er e det ai ned w ith o u t p ro b a b le c a u se in v io latio n o f th e F o u rth a n d F o u rte e n th A m e n d me n t s . I n Sc h n e y d e r ’ s c a s e , th e Di s tr i c t Cou r t f or t he E astern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D uB oi s , J

. ) di s m i s s ed the § 1 9 8 3 c l a i m a g a i n s t ADA S mi th a n d th e p e n d e n ts t a t e l a w c l a i ms agai ns tSm i th and the D A ’ s O ffi ce. T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d that Sm i th w as ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e pr os ecut or i al i m m uni ty , and that the Penns y l vani a TortC l ai m s A ct , 42 Pa. C

. S. § 8541, barr ed the s t at e l aw cl ai m s agai ns tthe D A ’ s O ff ice. Schne y derthen w i thdr ew her fede r al cl ai m agai ns tthe D A ’ s O ffi ce a nd fi l ed the p re se n t ap p e a l to c h a llen g e th e D istric t C o u rt’s im m u n ity hol di ng. 2
I n O dd’ s cas e, the D i s tr i ct C our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ct of Penns y l vani a ( Shapi r o, J

. ) d ec li n ed t o di s m i s s the § 19838 cl ai m s agai ns tA D A M al one and the D A ’ s O ffi ce. T he D i s tr i ct C o u rt co n clud ed that af

ter W ay w as di s m i s s ed, “M al one w as no l ongera c t i n g a s a n a d v o c a t e o f th e s t a t e . ” M a l o n e f

i l e d an i nt er l ocut oryappea l t o chal l enge t h e D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s hol di ng th a t h e w a s n o t e n title d to a b s o lu te p ro s e c u to ri a l im m u n ity. See In re Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 2 1 5 F

. 3 d 3 6 7 , 3 7 3 -74 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 0 ). II. I n l ightof Schney der ’ s vol unt arydi s m i s s al of her r emai ni ng fede r al cl ai m agai ns tthe D A ’ s O ffi ce, w e have j ur i s di ct i on t o r evi ew the D i s tr i ct C our t ’ s fi nal or derdi s m i s s i ng al l of Schney der ’ s cl ai m s and gr ant i n g Sm i th pr os ecut or i al i m m uni ty . 28 U

. S. C

. § 1291. W e have j ur isdict i on over M al one’ s i n terl ocut oryappea l of the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s deni al of pr os ecut or i al i m m uni typur s uant t o the col l at er al or derdoctr i ne. Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 2 1 5 F .3 d a t 3 7 3 -7 4 ; Kulw i ckiv. D aw s on , 969 F. 2d 1454, 1459 ( 3d C i r . 1992) ( ci t i ng C ohen v. B enef i ci al I ndus

. Loan C or

p. , 3 3 7 U

. S

. 5 4 1 (19 4 9 )). We r e v i e w de novo the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s R ul e 12( b) ( 6) d i s m i s s a l o f

S c h n e y d e r ’ s c o m p l a i n tb a s e d o n ab s o l u t e i m m u n i ty. Y a rr is , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 ; Kulw i cki , 969 F. 2d at1461. L i kew i s e, o u r re v iew o f

th e D istric t C o u rt’s d e n ial o f M a lo n e ’s m o tio n to d is m is s b a s e d o n p ro s e c u to ri a l im m u n ity is p le n a ry. G i uf f r e v. B iss e ll , 3 1 F

. 3 d 1 2 4 1 , 1 2 5 1 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 9 4 )

. I n b o th c a s e s , we appl y the s ame s t andar d as the D i s tr i ct C our t , acc ept i ng as true th e f a c tu a l alle g a tio n s in th e c o m p lain t an d d ra w in g a ll rea so n ab le inf

ere n ce s in fav o r o f S ch n ey d er an d O d d

. Y a rr is , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 4 ; G i uff

re , 31 F. 3d at1251. W e w i l l aff i r m the di s m i s s al of Schn ey der ’ s cas e onl yi f i tappea r s fr om her9 c o m p lain t th a t sh e c a n p ro v e n o se t o f f a c ts th a t w o u ld e n tit le h e r t o re lie f

. N

am iv. Fauver , 8 2 F

. 3 d 6 3 , 6 5 (3 d C ir

. 1 9 9 6 ). W e w i l l affirm the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s refusal t o d i sm i ss O dd ’s case s o l ong as hi s compl ai nts t at es a cl ai m upon w hi ch r el i ef c an be g ra n te d

. See F ED
. R. C IV
. P. 1 2 (b)(6 ). In se e k in g to d ism iss th e su its a g a in st th e m , A D A s S m ith an d M alon e inv o k e p rose cu tori al i m m u n ity . M o re th an a m ere defe ns e t o l i abi l i ty , pr os ecut or i al i m m uni ty embodi es the “r i ght nott o s t and tr i al , ” Mo n tg o m e ry C o u n ty , 215 F. 3d at373 ( ci t i ng Mitch e ll v. Fo rs

y th , 4 7 2 U .S

. 5 1 1 , 5 2 5 (1 9 8 5 )), a n d is p ro p e rly ra is e d in a R u le 1 2 (b )( 6 ) m o tio n to d is m is s . See, e. g. , Kulw i cki , 969 F. 2d at1461- 62. A p ros ecut orbear s the “he avybur den” of es t abl i s hi ng e n title m e n t to a b s o lu te im m u n ity. L ig h tv . Ha ws , 472 F. 3d 74, 80- 81 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( quot i ng Forsyth v. K l ei nd i enst , 599 F. 2d 1 2 03, 1212 ( 3d C i r . 1979) )

. I n l i ghtof the Supr eme C our t ’s “qui t e s par i ng” r ecogni t i on of abs ol ut e i m m uni ty t o § 1 9 83 l i abi l i ty , w e begi n w i th the pr es um pt i on thatqual i fi ed r ather th a n a b s o lu te im m u n ity is a p p ro p ri a te
. C ar t er v. C it y of P h ila d e lp h ia , 181 F. 3d 339, 355 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( ci t i ng B urns v R eed , 5 0 0 U

. S

. 4 7 8 , 4 8 6 -87 (19 9 1 )). T o over come t hi s pr es um pt i on, a pros ecut orm us ts how thathe ors he w as funct i oni ng as the st ate’s advocat e w hen p e r f o r mi n g th e a c t i o n ( s ) i n q u e s t i on. Y a rr is , 465 F. 3d at136. T hi s i n q u i r yfocus es on “the natur e of the func t i on per form ed, not the i dent i tyof the ac t orw ho per form ed i t
. ” Light , 472 F. 3d at 7 8 ( quot i ng H

ughes v. Long , 2 4 2 F

. 3 d 1 2 1 , 1 2 5 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 1 ) )

. U n d e r t h is f

u n c tio n a l a p p ro a c h , a p ro s e c u to r e n jo ys10 a b so lu te im m u n ity f

o r ac tio n s p e rf

o rm e d in a ju d icia l o r “ q u a sij u d i c i a l ” c a p a c i ty. G i uff re , 31 F. 3d at1251 ( quot i ng I m bl erv. P achtm an , 4 2 4 U .S . 4 0 9 , 4 3 0 (1 9 7 6 )); R o se v . B a rtle , 871 F. 2d 331, 34 6 (3d C i r . 1989)

. T hus , i m m uni tyatt ache s t o act i ons “i nt i m at el yas s oci at ed w i th the j udi ci al phas es of l i t i gat i on, ” but n o t to a d m in istr a ti v e o r in v e stig a to rya c tio n s u n re late d to in itia tin g a n d c o n d u c tin g ju d ic ia l p ro c e e d in g s . G i uff re , 31 F. 3d at1251 ( quot i ng I

m bl er , 424 U

. S. at430) ( internal quot at i on o m itt e d ); see al

so R ose , 871 F. 2d at346 ( contr as ti ng the p r o s e c u t o r’s “ q u a si-ju d icia l” r o le f r o m h i s “a d m inistrati v e/i n v esti g ati v e” role). T hu s, the p res ent appeal r equ i res a “m et i culous analy si s” o f th e A D A s ’ a c tio n s , Light , 472 F. 3d at79, t o det erm i ne w h e th e r th e yw e re “ q u a si-ju d icia l” a n d e n tit led to a b so lu te i m m un i ty , or “adm i nis trat i ve o r i n vest i gatory ” and no tso e n title d

. G i uff

re , 31 F.3d at1251- 52; R ose , 871 F. 2d at346. T h e f a c t-in ten siv e n a tu re o f th is in q u iry re q u ire s th a t w e b e g in byr evi ew i ng the ci r cumst ance s thatthe Supr eme C our thas i n t e rp r e t e di n e x p l a i n i n g th e c o n t o u r s o f p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i ty. A

. Supr em e C our tJur is pr udence T h e S u p re m e C o u rt f

irst a c k n o w led g e d th e a b so lu te i m m uni tyof pr os ecut or s t o § 1983 s ui t s i n I m bl erv. P achtm an , 424 U

. S. 409, 420 ( 1976)

. Fi ndi ng a comm on l aw tr adi t i on of pr os ecut or ial i m m uni tyand s tr ong pol i cycons i der at i ons that s u p p o rt e d e x te n d in g im m u n ity to th e § 1 9 8 3 c o n te x t, id

. at421, 4 2 4 , the C o u rt d e f

in e d th e sc o p e o f

p ro se c u to ria l im m u n ityw ith re f e re n c e to th e f

a c ts o f th e c a s e . Id

. at430.11 D e p u ty D istric t A tto rn e yR ich a rd P a c h tm a n su c c e ss f u lly p ro s e c u t e d P a u l I m b le r f o r f e lo n ym u rd e r. Id

. at412. A ft er I m bl er ’ s convi ct i on and sen t ence , Pachtm an di s cover ed new evi dence thatcorr obor at ed I m bl er ’ s al i bi and cas tdoubton the c re d ib ility o f a k e y p ro s e c u tio n w itn e s s . Id

. Pachtm an i nform ed th e g o v e rn o r o f

h is d is c o v e ry, id

. at 412, and I m bl erobt ai ned a w ri t o f h a b e a s c o rp u s b a s e d p ri m a ri ly o n th e n e w e v id e n c e . Id

. at414. A ft er hi s exoner at i on and re l eas e, I m bl ers ued, al l egi ng that Pachtm an us ed fal s e t es t i m ony and s uppr es sed m at er i al e v id e n c e a t I m b le r’ s m u rd e r t ri a l. Id

. at415- 16. A cc ep ti n g thes e a ll eg ati o n s as true , the S u p rem e C o u rt a f f irm e d th e d ism iss a l o f

Im b ler ’s c o m p lain t, ho ld in g th a t “in i ni t i at i ng a pr os ecut i on and i n pr es ent i ng the St at e’ s cas e, the p rose cu tor i s im m u n e f rom a c ivil su itfo r da m ag es u n d er § 1983. ” Id

. at431. T he C our t le ftopen the ques t i on w hether abs ol ut e i m m uni tyw oul d att ach t o “thos e a sp ec t s of the pr os ecut or ’ s r es po n si bi l i tythatcas thi m i n the r ol e of a n admi ni s tr at orori nves t i gat i ve off i cerr atherthan tha t of advoca t e. ” Id

. at430- 31. T he C our tans w er ed thi s ques t i on i n B ur ns v. R eed , 500 U

. S. 478, 495- 96 ( 1991)

. T her e, pol i ce offi cer s s us pect ed C athy B u rn s o f s h o o tin g h e r t w o s o n s . Id

. at481. B el i evi ng that B urns had mul t i pl e per s o n ali t i es , the pol i ce a s ked pr os ecut or R e e d if th e y c o u ld in te rr o g a te B u rn s u n d e r h yp n o s is

. Id

. at482. R e e d a p p ro v e d

. Id

. U nd er hypn osi s, B urns r eferr ed to her sons’ att acke ras “K at i e, ” and a l s o r efe rr ed t o her s el f bythatname. Id

. O nce t h e o ff

ic er s obt ai ned R eed’ s as s ur ance thattheyhad p ro b a b le c a u s e , th e ya rr e s te d B u rn s . Id

. S h o rt lythere af ter, R eed appear ed at a hear i ng t o obt ai n a s ear ch w arr antfor12 B urns ’ s hous e dur i ng w hi ch he m i s l ed the j udge i nt o bel i evi ng th a t B u rn s h a d c o n f

e s s e d to s h o o tin g h e r s o n s . Id

. 482- 83. B a s e d o n th is m is c o n c e p tio n , th e ju d g e is s u e d th e w a rr a n t. Id

. at483. B efor e B urns ’ s tr i al began, the j udge s uppr es s ed B u rn s ’s s ta te m e n ts m a d e u n d e r h yp n o s is

. Id

. A s a r es ul t , R eed d ro p p e d th e c h a rg e s , a n d B u rn s s u e d R e e d

. Id

. E vi dencing the fa ct
- bas ed natur e of the pr os ecut or i al i mm u n i tyi n q u i r y , th e Co u r tp a r s e d Re e d ’ s a c t i o n s i n t o two c a teg o rie s: (1 ) a p p e a rin g a s a la w y e r f o r th e sta te in a p ro b a b le caus e hea r i ng t o obt ai n a s ear ch w arr ant , and ( 2) pr ovi di ng l egal a d v ic e t o t h e p o lic e . Id

. at487, 492. A s t o the form er , R eed e n jo y e d a b s o lu te im m u n ity. Id

. at 48 7

. A s to the lat ter, how ever , the C our t hel d: “[w ] e do not bel i eve . . . thatadvi s i ng th e p o lic e in th e i n v e s t i g a tiv e p h a s e o f a c ri m in a l c a s e . . . qual i fi e[d] [R eed] for absol ut e i m m uni ty . ” Id

. at493. E x ten d in g im m u n ityto th is a c tiv ityw o u ld e v isc e ra te th e ru le thata pr os ecut or ’ s admi ni s tr at i ve and i nves t i gat oryact s ar e not a b s o l u t e l y i m m u n e b e c a u s e “ [ a ] l m o s ta n y a c t i o n b y a p ro se c u to r, in c lu d in g h is o r h e r d ire c t p a rticip a tio n in p u re ly in v e stig a tiv e a c tiv ity , c o u ld b e sa id to b e in so m e w a yre late d to the ul t i m at e dec i s i on w hethert o pr os ecut e. ” Id

. at495. T he C our t fur ther j us t i fi ed i t s deci s i on w i th a r evi ew of the r el evantpol i cycons i der at i ons , fi ndi ng no co m m on l aw tr adi t i on thatw oul d have acc or ded i m m uni tyi n thi s s i tuat i on, no r i s k of vexa t i ous l i t i gat i on i f i m m uni tyw as w i thhel d, and no ad equat e che ck t o pr eventabus e bypr os ecut or s for“out

- ofcourtact i v it i es . . . thatoccurpr i ort o the i ni t i at i on of a pr os ecut i on. ” Id

. at493- 96.13 Fol l ow i ng i t s appr oach i n R eed , the C our ti n B uckley v . F i t zs i m m ons ca ref

u ll yscru ti n ized p rose cu tor F it zsim m o n s’s a c t i on s i n o bt a i ni ng a mur de ri nd i c t mentof Buck l e y . 50 9 U. S. 259, 2 6 1 , 2 7 0 ( 1 9 9 3 )

. Aft e r a th i r d p a r ty c o n f e s s e d t o t he m ur der , B uckl eys ued Fi t zs i m m ons , cl ai m i ng thatFi t zs i m m ons fabri cat ed ev i de n c e to ob t ai n the i nd i ct m ent and m ade f al se s ta te m e n ts a b o u t B u c k le yin a p re s s c o n f e re n c e . Id

. at264. T he C o u rt h e ld th a t F itzs im m o n s w a s n o t en ti tl e d to a b so lu te im m u n ity f

o r e ith e r a c t. Id

. at275- 77. A s t o the form er , the C our t hel d that at the t i m e Fi t zs i m m ons al l egedl yfabr i cat ed the evi dence , he had no pr obabl e caus e t o arr es tB uckl ey , no i ndi ctm en t had i s s ued, and no j udi ci al pr ocee di ngs had begun. Id . at 2 7 5 -7 6 . T h u s, F it z sim m o n s’s a c tio n s w e re p u re ly in v e s ti g a t o r ya n d n o t e n title d to a b s o lu te im m u n ity. Id . A s to the lat ter, the C o u rt n o ted th at at co m m o n law , p rose cu tors w ere abs ol ut el yi m m une fr om defa m at i on l i abi l i tyfori n- court stat em ent s butr ecei v ed o n lyq u ali fied im m u n ityfo r ou t- o f-c o u rt s ta te m e n ts
. Id

. at277. A ccor di ngl y , F it zs i m m ons w as not e n tit led to a b so lu te im m u n ityf o r h is p u b lic s tate m e n ts f a lse ly im p lic a tin g B u c k le y . Id

. Fi nal l y , i n Kal i na v. F l etcher , the C our tagai n par s ed the act i ons of pr os ecut orK al i na t o deci de w hether s he w as ent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . 522 U

. S. 118, 120 ( 1997)

. K al i na fi l ed three d o cu m en ts t o init iat e a b u rg la ryp rose cu ti o n o f F let ch er, w h o a lle g e d ly sto le c o m p u te r e q u ip m e n t f ro m a s c h o o l. Id

. at 1 20- 21. T he fi r s ttw o document s — an i nform at i on and a m o tio n f o r a n a rr e s t w a rr a n t — w e re u n s w o rn . Id

. at121. T he thi r d — a “Cer t i fi cat i on forD et erm i nat i on of Pr obabl e C aus e”

— w a s a s w o rn d o c u m e n t c o n ta in in g tw o f a ls e s ta te m e n ts
. Id

. A s Flet cher w as arre ste d an d jai l ed b efore t he ch arges agai nst14 h im w e re d ism iss e d , h e su e d K a lin a b a se d o n h e r m iss tate m e n ts in th e C e rt if

ic a tio n , a n d K a lin a a s s e rt e d a b s o lu te im m u n ity. Id

. T he C o u r thel d thatK al i na’ s act s of ( 1) fi l i ng the i nform at i on and ( 2) fi l i ng the mot i on foran arr es tw arr antw er e pr ot ect ed by a b s o lu te im m u n ity, id . at 1 2 9 , b u t h e r a c t o f (3 ) “ p e rso n a lly att es t ing t o the truth of the ave r m ent ” i n the C ert i fi cat i on w as non- pr os ecut or i al beca us e i t coul d have been per form ed byany c o m p e te n t w itn e s s . Id

. at129- 30. I ti s t empt i ng t o der i ve br i ght

- l ine rul es fr om the a f o r e m e n tio n e d c a s e s . C f. E RW IN C HEM ER INS KY , F EDE RAL J URIS DI C TI ON 52 5-26 (4th e d . 2 0 0 3 ) (re c o g n izin g th e u n c e rta in ty s urr oundi ng the pr eci s e s cop e o f pros ecut or i al i m m uni tybut su g g e stin g th a t in -c o u rt a c tiv iti e s ar e g e n e ra llyp ro tec ted w h ile out
- of- courtact i vi t i es , and act i vi t i es tr adi t i onal l yper form ed by th e p o lice , a re n o t) ; s ee al s o B uckley , 509 U

. S. at275- 76 (i n d icating that a p rose cu tor’s po st- ind ictm en t acti o n s are gener al l ypr ot ect ed byabs ol ut e i m m uni tyw hi l e pr e- i ndi ctm ent act i ons ar e not )

. T o pr es erve the fac t
- bas ed natur e of the i nqui r y , how ever , the Supr eme C our thas caut i oned aga i ns ts uch c a te g o ri c a l re a s o n in g . See, e. g. , I m bl er , 424 U

. S. at431 n. 33 ( pr os ecut or i al i m m uni tyext ends t o “ac t i ons p reli m i naryt o the i ni t i at i on of a pr os ecut i on an d act i ons apartfr om the c o u r tr o o m, ” b u t “ [ a ] t s o me p o i n t , a n d wi th r e s p e c t t o s o me d ec is io n s , th e p ro s e c u to r n o d o u b t f u n c tio n s a s a n ad m inistrator” an d lose s ab so lute im m u n ity ). B

. Thi r d C i r cui tJur is pr udence Fol l ow i ng t he Supr eme C our t ’ s gui dance , our pr os ecut or i al i m m uni tyanal y s i s focus es on the uni que fa ct s of15 ea c h ca se a n d req u ir es c are fu l dissection o f th e p rose cu tor’s ac ti o n s . S ee, e. g. , Y

a rr is , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 ; Kulw i cki , 969 F. 2d at1463. W e have r ej ect ed br i ght

- l i ne rul es that w oul d tr eatthe t i m i ng of the pr os ecut or ’ s act i on ( e. g. p re- o r po st- ind ictm en t) , ori t s l ocat i on ( i

. e. in - o r o u t- o f -c o u rt ), a s d is p o s itiv e . See R ose , 87 1 F

. 2d at34 6; K u lw i cki , 969 F. 2d at1463. W e have found t he s e c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l e v a n t , h o wev e r , t o th e e x t e n t th a t t hey b ear up on the nature of the func t i on the prosecut or is p e rf o rm in g . S e e , e.g ., Y

a rr is , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 8 -3 9 ; Kulw i cki , 969 F. 2d at1467. I n Y a rr is , w e hel d thatw her e a pr os ecut or ’ s r ol e as a d v o c a te h a s n o t y e t b e g u n , o r w h e re it h a s c o n c lu d e d , ab so lu te i m m uni tydoes notatt ach. 465 F. 3d at137 ( quot i ng Spur l ock v

. Thom ps on , 330 F. 3d 791, 799 ( 6th C i r . 2003) )

. D ur i ng di ffe r ent s t a g e s o f

Yarr i s ’ s c a s e , p r o s e c u t o r s a l l e g e d l ywi th h e l d and des tr oy ed exc ul pat oryevi d ence, fabr i cat ed a f al s e conf es s i on, a n d o b ta in e d a f

a l s e s t a te m e n t f

ro m a ja ilh o u s e in f

o rm a n t. Id

. at136. B eca us e w e coul d not di s cern fr om Y arr i s ’ s compl ai nt “w hetherthe fa br i cat i on of Y arr i s ’ s confe s s i on occurr ed dur i ng the pr el i m i nary i nves t i gat i on of an unsol ved cr i m e” or“af t erthe [pr os ecut or s ] deci ded t o i ndi ct Y arr i s and had begun w or ki ng as th e sta te’ s a d v o c a tes ,” w e d e c lin e d to e x ten d a b so lu te im m u n ity to th is a c t. Id

. at 1 3 8 -39. Si m i l ar l y , w e r efus ed t o ext end abs ol ut e i m m uni tyt o the pr os ecu t or s ’ actof w i thhol di ng excul pat oryevi dence aft erY arr i s ’ s conv i ct i on and s ent ence beca us e w e had no pr oof thatthe pr os ecut or s r emai ned i nvol ved as the s t at e’ s advoca t es i n “adve r s ar i al pos t
- convi ct i on pr ocee di ngs . ” Id

. at 137. A bs ent s uch pr oof, w e concl uded, the pr os ecut o r s wer e “ a c t i n g me r e l ya s . . . c u s t o d i a n [ s ] of e v id e n c e ” a n d c o u ld c la im o n ly q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. Id

. at138.W e aga i n caut i on thatthi s i s no t a b ri g h t
- l i ne rul e. 3 D ependi ng on t he ci r cumst ance s of ea ch ca s e, s om e pr ei ndi ctm entact s — l i ke obt ai ni ng, r evi ew i ng, and eva l uat i ng evi d en ce i n pr epar at i on forpr os ecut i on — and s om e pos t
- tr i al act s — l i ke post

- convi ct i on appea l s

— m ay be advocat i ve and e n title a p ro s e c u to r t o a b s o lu te im m u n ity. Kulw i cki , 969 F. 2d at 1 4 6 5 ; Y a rr is , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 ; com par e Schr ob v. C at t ers on , 948 F. 2d 1402, 1411 ( 3d C i r . 1991) ( “A pr os ecut or ’ s al l eged f a ilu re to p ro p e rly in v e stig a te b e f o re in iti a tin g a p ro se c u tio n is also co n d u ct w ith in the sco p e o f a b so lute im m u n ity . ”) , w ith B uckley , 509 U

. S. at276 n. 7 ( I n s om e s i tuat i ons , i n “obt ai ni ng, r evi ew i ng, and ev aluat i ng” the evi dence , “the pr os ecut orno doubtfunct i ons as an admi ni s tr at or r ather than as an off i cerof the c o u rt
. ”). 16 B yco n tr ast, w ith resp ec t t o the f alse state m en t pro sec u tors ob t ai ned from the jai l ho use i nfo rm a n t, w e held that because “Y arr i s had al r eadybeen c har ged, ” t he pros ecut or s w er e “a ct i ng a s a d v o c a te s ra th e r th a n in v e stig a to rs” a n d w e re e n tit led to a b s o lu te im m u n ity. Id

. a t 1 3 9

. Al th o u g h b y n o m eans d is p o s i t i v e , Y

arris t eac hes thatthe per i od dur i ng w hi ch p ro se c u to rs a re m o st lik e lyf u n c tio n in g in a “ q u a si-ju d icia l” c a p a c ityis th e tim e b e tw e e n in d ictm e n t an d d ism iss a l, ac q u itt a l, orconvi ct i on. 3
W e have al s o r ecogni ze d tha t , pr es um abl ybyvi r tue of thei regr egi ous nes s , s om e ac t s fal l w hol l yout s i de the pr os ecut or i al r ol e no m att er w hen or w her e theyar e comm i t t ed. See Kulw i cki , 969 F. 2d at1463 ( ci t i ng R ose , 8 7 1 F

. 2 d at 34 6 ). For exampl e, pr os ecut or s neverenj oyabs ol ut e i m m uni tyfor17 d e lib e ra te ly d e s tr o y in g e x c u lp a to ry e v id e n c e . Se e Y a rr is , 465 F. 3d at136- 37. L i kew i s e, s om e ac t s ar e s o farr emovedfr om the “j udi ci al phas es of l i t i gat i on” thatw e do nothes i t at e t o l abel them admi ni s tr ati ve. I n s ever al cas es , forexampl e, w e have cons i der ed t he i m m uni ty due t o pr os ecut or s w ho m i s handl ed or i m pr oper l yw i thhel d pr opertyconfi s cat ed fr om cr i m ina l defe ndant s . I n G i uff

re , w e hel d that w her e the p rose cut or fac i l i t at ed the s al e of pl ai nt i ff’ s pr operty , w hi ch pl ai n ti ff for fei t ed as part of an i m m uni tyfr om pr os ecut i on agr eement , he per form ed a str i ct l y admi ni s tr at i ve funct i on and w as notent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni ty . 31 F. 3d at1253. Si m i l ar l y , i n Schr ob , we hel d thata pr os ecut or ’s “ m anage m entof and ne got i at i ons c o n c e rn in g re tu rn o f

th e [ s e iz e d ] p ro p e rty[ w a s] n o t d ire c tly related to the jud ici al pro ce ss.” 94 8 F

. 2 d 1 4 0 2 , 1 4 1 9 -20 (3d C ir

. 1991)

. B eca us e the pr os ecut orw as i ns t ead “ act i ng i n an a d m i n i s tr a t i v e r o l e , ” w e d e c l i n e d t o e x t e n d a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty. Id

. P e rh a p s m o st p e rtin e n t to th e in sta n t ap p e a ls, in R ei t zv. C ount y of B ucks , w e cons i der ed the i m m uni ty d u e t o a pr os ecut orw ho del ay ed i n r eturni ng s ei zed pr opertyi n vi ol at i on of a court or der

. 125 F. 3d 139, 141 ( 3d C i r . 1997)

. I n R e itz , the p ro se c u tin g a u th o rity se ize d p ro p e rtyp u rp o rte d lyb e lo n g in g to the def endant w ho w as char ged w i th pos s es s i ng and del i ver i ng m a r i j u a n a . Id . T h e se izu re w a s c o n d u c ted p u rsu a n t to a sta te l aw thatauthor i zed the appr opr i at i on of pro p ert ythatei ther fac i l i t at ed a c r i m i nal act or w as obt ai ned w i th the pr ocee ds of a c ri m in a l a c t. Id

.18 T he def endant ’ s r el at i ves obt ai ned a c our tor derforthe re tu rn o f c e rta in p ro p e rtyth a t d id n o t b e lo n g to th e d e f e n d a n t. Id

. at141- 42. D es pi t e t he orde r , the pros ecut i ng author i tyfai l ed to re tu rn th e p ro p e rt yf

o r n e a rl ya y e a r. Id

. W e hel d thatnei ther abs ol ut e norqual i fi ed i m m uni typr ot ect ed the pr os ecut orfr om l i abi l i tyfo rthi s del aybeca us e “the pr os ecut or[had] the o b lig a tio n to d u lyc o m p lyw ith a ju d icia l o rd e r ” a n d to “ a v o id vi ol at i ng the r i ght s of other s . ” Id

. at147. III

. W i th t he for egoi ng pr i nci pl es i n m i nd, w e turn t o the m eri t s of t he inst ant appeals

. A

. Ni col e Schne

yder W e a d d re ss f

irst th e m o re d if

f icu lt ca se o f

N ico le Schney der

. W e begi n bycar eful l ydefi ni ng the ac t( orr ather o m i s s io n ) t h a t g a v e ri s e to S c h n e y d e r’ s s u it. See, e. g. , Y arris , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 ; Kulw i cki , 9 6 9 F .2 d a t 1 4 6 3 ; Schr ob , 948 F. 2d at1409. S c h n e y d e r a c k n o w led g e s th a t A D A S m ith w a s a c tin g in her pro s e c utor i al capac i tyw hen she secured t he m at eri al w i tness w a rr a n t f o r S c h n e y d e r’ s a rr e s t. See B et t s v. R i cha rd , 726 F. 2d 7 9 , 8 1 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 1 ); D ani el s v. Keis er , 5 8 6 F .2 d 6 4 , 6 8 (7 th C ir. 1 9 7 8 ). S c h n e y d e r a lleg e s, h o w e v e r, th a t S m ith ’s f a ilu re to not i fyJ udge M eans ( perhi s or derand perl ocal cus t om ) thatthe Ove r by cas e had be en cont i nued w as an admi ni s tr at i ve over s i ght

. O nce Smi th per form ed thi s cl er i cal duty , Schney der19 conce des , Sm i th w as fr ee t o advoca t e anypo sit ion she w ant ed w i th r egar d t o t he pr opr i etyof Schney der ’ s r el eas e. Sm i th, on t he otherhand, char act er i zes heractas fai l i ng “t o s eek M s . Schney der ’ s r el eas e fr om cus t odyw hen the O ver by c a s e w a s c o n tin u e d .” T h is “ a c t o f p ro s e c u to ri a l d is c re tio n ,” Sm i th ar gues , cannotb e car ved up i nt o i t s advoca t i ve and admi ni s tr at i ve component s . A s Sm i th ’s counse l cont ended a t o ra l ar g u m e n t, ev e n a p lain lyp ro se c u to ria l ac t li k e f ili n g a b ill of i n f o r ma t i o n i n v o l v e s p r e d i c a t e a d mi n i s tr a t i v e a c t s th a tany cl erk coul d per form , su ch as pr i nt i ng and bi ndi ng the documen ts. I n ot herw or ds , the fa ctthats om e admi ni s tr at i ve a c ts n e c e ss a rilya c c o m p a n y n e a rly a ll p ro se c u to ria l a c ts s h o u ld n o ts tr i p p r o s e c u t o r s o f

i m m u n i ty. W h e n v i e w e d f

r o m S m i th ’s s u g g e s te d l e v e l o f g e n e r a l i ty, h er a ct m igh t r ea so n ab lyb e c h ara cterized as a n o u t- o f -c o u rt “ef for tt o contr ol the pr es ent at i on of [a ] w i tnes s ’ t es t i m ony , ” an actthe Supr eme C our tvi ew ed as advoca t i ve on the fa cts o f at le a s t o n e c a s e . See I

m bl er , 424 U

. S. a t 4 3 1 n . 32. I n I m bl er , pr os ecut orPachtm an ask ed t he pol i ce t o r efr ai n fr om ques t i oni ng hi s pr i m aryiden ti fica ti o n w itn ess a b o u t an unre l at ed b a d -c h e c k c h a rg e u n til th e w itn e s s te s tif ie d a g a in s t I m b le r. Id

. at411, 431 n. 32. I m bl er cl ai m ed thi s r eques tw as “i nves t i gat i ve a c tiv ityb e c a u se it w a s a d ire c tio n to p o lice o f f ice rs e n g a g e d in the i nves t i gat i on of a c r i m e. ” Id

. at 43 1 n . 3 2

. T h e C o u rt dis agreed an d co ncluded that Pach t m an w as perform i ng “a t ask fai r l yw i thi n hi s funct i on as an advoc at e. ” Id

. W e do notbel i eve thi s par enthet i cal concl us i on w as i nt ended a s a ca t egor i cal rul e. A s w e not ed pr evi ous l y , the20 S u p re m e C o u r t h a s re p e a ted lyin stru c ted th a t im m u n ity det erm i nat i ons cannotbe made w i thoutr efe r ence t o the uni que fact s of each c a se , and w e fi nd the fa ct s of S chn ey der’ s case di s t i ngui s habl e. H er e, A D A Sm i th’ s act occurr ed duri ng a pr ol onged and cl ear l ydel i m i t ed per i o d of j udi ci al i nact i vi ty , w her eas P a c h tm a n ’s re q u e st th a t th e p o lice re f ra in f ro m q u e stio n in g h is w i tness occu rr ed “duri ng a cou rtroom reces s” from the trial in w h ic h th e w itn e s s w a s to te s tif y . Id

. P achtm an’s effo rts to co n tr o l the pr es ent at i on of hi s w i tnes s ’ s t es t i m onyw er e thus m or e “i nt i m at el yas s oci at ed w i th the j udi ci al phas e of the c ri m in a l p ro c e s s ” th a n S m ith ’s

. Id . at 4 3 0 . In a d d iti o n , S m ith di s obey ed the expl i ci ti ns truct i ons of the courtw hen she f ai l ed t o not i fy J udge M eans that the pr ocee di ngs i n w hi ch Schney der w as t o t e s t i f

yh a d b e e n d e l a y e d , whe r e a s Pa c h t ma n was u n der n o c o u rt-im p o se d o b lig a tio n to p e rm it th e p o lice to q u e stio n h is w i tnes s . A s a r es ul t , Pachtm an ’s a cti nvol ved more di s cr et i on than Sm i th’ s . T hus, ev en i f w e vi ew ed Sm i th’ s actather s u g g e s t e d l e v e l o f

g e n e r a l i ty( wh i c h , a s we e x p l a i n b e l o w, w o u ld b e i nappr opr i at e) , w e w oul d fi nd heractl es s w or thyof absolut e i m m un i tythan P achtm an’s. T he for egoi ng di s cus s i on i s l ar gel yaca demi c bec aus e for the di s t i nct i on betw een advoca t i ve and admi ni s tr at i ve act s t o be u se f u l, w e m u st n a rro w lyd e f in e th e a c t at iss u e . A f ter a ll, “[a ] l m os t any act i on by a pr os ecut or , i ncl udi ng hi s or herdi r ect part i ci pat i on i n pur el y i nves t i gat i ve ac t i vi ty , coul d be s ai d t o be in so m e w a yre late d to th e u lti m a te d e c is io n w h e th e r to pr os ecut e. ” B ur ns , 500 U

. S. at495. Si m i l ar l y , al m os tany a c tio n b ya p ro se c u to r, in c lu d in g th e d isp a tch o f p u re lyIn her bri efs, S chn ey der charact eri zes Sm i th’s actas, 4 in tera lia , f

a ilin g to : “ n o tif

ya u th o ri tie s th a t p la in tif f

. . . rem aine d in cu stod y , ” “ n o ti fyau tho ri ti es th at [S m ith ] ha [d ] a m at er i al w i tnes s i n cus t ody , ” “not i fyauthor i t i es thatpl ai nt i ff w oul d no l onger b e n ee d ed as a w i tnes s , ” and “ not i fythe author i t i es thatthe under l y i ng cr i m i nal cas e had been c ont i nued and t hat pl ai nt i ff w oul d not be needed a s a w i tnes s foranother f o u r m o n th s .” In h e r b ri e f

, S m ith c h a ra c te ri z e s h e r a c t a s , in tera lia , 5 negl ect i ng t o: “s ecur e M s . Schney der ’ s i m m edi at e r el eas e fr om c u s to d y ,” “ s e e k M s . S c h n e y d e r’ s re le a s e f ro m c u s to d y ,”

“ p e titio n [ ] f

o r th e w ith d ra w a l o f

[ th e m a te ri a l w itn e s s ] w a rr a n t,” a n d “ a d v o c a t[ e ] f

o r t h e re le a s e o f

[ a ] w itn e s s [ ].” 21 a d m in istra tiv e tas k s, c a n b e s a id to b e in so m e w a yre late d to m o re c e n tr a l p ro s e c u to ri a l f u n c tio n s . See G uz m an- R i ver a v. R i ver a- C r uz , 55 F. 3d 26, 29 ( 1s tC i r . 1995) ( “The pr os ecut or i al natur e of a n act does no tspread back w ards l i ke an i nk b lo t, im m u n izin g e v e ry th in g it to u c h e s.” ). It w a s S m ith ’s b u rd e n to e s ta b lis h h e r e n title m e n t to a b s o lu te im m u n ity, Light , 472 F. 3d at80- 81, and i n l i ght o f o u r pr efe r ence fora “met i cul ous a n a lysis ” o f

th e p ro s e c u to r’ s a c tio n s , id

. at79, w e bel i eve Schney der ’ s char act er i zat i on of S m i th’ s act i s m or e appr opr i at e. Ind ee d , w e find that the disti n cti o n b etw ee n inf o rm ing the c o u rt ab o u t th e status o f a d etaine d w itn ess (S ch n ey d er’s ch ara cterizati o n ) a n d af firm ati v elysee k ing that w itn ess’s 4 r el eas e ( Sm i th’ s char act er i zat i on ) i s a pr i nci pl ed one. 5W e l eave t o the D i s tr i ctC our ton r emand t he ques t i on 6 w h e t h e r S m ith is e n title d to q u a lif ie d im m u n ity. S e e I

mbl er , 4 2 4 U .S . at 4 3 0 -3 1 ; C ar t er , 181 F. 3d at356. 22 Ha v i n g a d o p t e d S c h n e y d e r ’ s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n , i tf o l l o ws th a tS m i th i s n o te n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i ty. 6 W e fi nd thatSm i th’ s obl i gat i on to i nform J udge M eans that O ver by had bee n cont i nued — an d thatSchney derr emai ned i ncar cer at ed — w as pr i m ar i l y admi ni s tr at i ve, es peci al l yi n l i ght of J udge M eans ’ s expl i ci t or der that he be advi s ed of a nydel ay i n the O ver by pr ocee di ngs . Sm i th’ s duty t o advi s e J udge M eans o f th e se f a c ts re q u ire d n o a d v o c a c yo n h e r p a rt. O urcas e l aw bol s t er s thi s concl us i on . I n Y a rr is , for ex am p le , w e cons i der ed the t i m i ng of the pr os ecut or ’ s act i ons t o be relev anti n det erm i ni ng thei rnatur e, obs ervi ng thatpr ein d ictm e n t an d p o st-c o n v ictio n a c tio n s a re m o r e lik e ly a d m in is tr a tiv e th a n a d v o c a tiv e . S e e Y a rr is , 465 F. 3d at137. H er e, al though an i ndi ctm enthad i s s ued, the O ver by tr i al had b e e n c o n tin u e d f

ro m F e b ru a ry 2 , 2 0 0 5 , to M a y 2 5 , 2 0 0 5 , a per i od of nea r l yfourm on ths. Sm i th’ s fai l ur e t o actoccurr ed dur i ng thi s per i o d of j udi ci al i nact i vi ty . A l though the O ver by trial w a s n o t f

in a llyter m in a ted , itw a s s u sp e n d e d f o r a c lea rly d eli m ite d p eriod o f ti m e, cas ti n g seriou s d o u b t on S m ith ’s c laim s th a t h e r a c tio n s d u rin g th is p e rio d re m a in e d “ in tim a tely a s s o c ia te d w ith th e ju d ic ia l p h a s e ” o f th e litig a tio n . I

m bl er , 424 U

. S. at430. A ddi t i o n al fa cts all eg ed in S ch n ey d er’s co m p la i ntfurther su p p o r t o u r c o n c lu sio n th a t S m ith ’s o m iss io n w a s n o t “q u a si-23 j udi ci al

. ” Fi r s t , Schney d er a l l eges thatJ udge M eans tw i ce i ns truct ed Sm i th t o not i fyhi m i f the O ver by cas e w as cont i nued s o thath e coul d r el eas e Schney der

. W e ca n i m agi ne fe w ci r cumst ance s underw hi ch w e w oul d cons i derthe ac tof d i s o b e y i n g a c o u r t o r d e ro rd i r e c t i v e t o b e a d v o c a t i v e , a n d we ar e l oath to gr anta pr os ecut orabs ol ut e i m m uni tyfors uch d is o b e d ie n c e . S e e R e itz , 1 2 5 F .3 d a t 1 4 7 ; W hi t e by Swaf

f or d v. G e rb itz , 8 6 0 F .2 d 6 6 1 , 6 6 5 n .4 (6 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ). B uts ee W ebs t er v. G i bs on , 9 1 3 F .2 d 5 1 0 , 5 1 3 -1 4 (8 th C ir. 1 9 9 0 ) ; Y bar r a v. R eno , 723 F. 2d 675, 679 ( 9th C i r . 1984) ( pr os ecut or’s der el i ct i on of a duty that “ar i s e[s ] fr om hi s r ol e as an off i cerof the court

. . . cannotbe cons trued as onl yadmi ni s tr at i ve or inv esti g ati v e” ). Second, Schney deral l eges that i tw as the cus t om and pr act i ce i n Phi l adel phi a C ounty t o as s i gn s ol e r es pons i bi l i tyfor tr acki ng and moni t or i ng det aine d w i tnes s es t o the D i s tr i ct A tto rn e y ’s O f

f ice a n d to in d iv id u a l p ro se c u to rs. T h is c u sto m is cons i s t entw i th fede r al cr i m i nal pr act i ce: S u p erv isi n g D eten ti o n P en d ing T ri al. (1 ) In gener al

. T o el i m i nat e unnec es s arydet ent i on, the courtm us ts upervi s e the det ent i on w i th i n the d i s tr i c t
. . . o f

a n yp e r s o n s h e l d a s ma t e r i al w i tnes s es . ( 2) R eport s . A n att orneyforthe g o v e rn m e n t m u st re p o rt b iw e e k lyto th e c o u rt, l i s t i n g eac h m at er i al w i tnes s hel d i n cus t odyfor m o re th a n 1 0 d a ys p e n d in g in d ictm e n t, arr ai gn m ent, or trial. F or each m at eri al w i tness l i s t ed i n the r eport , an att orneyforthe governm ent m us ts t at e w hy the w i tnes s s houl d notbe r el eas edT h e se c o n d p a rt o f th e p ro v isio n , o f

c o u rse , is p lain ly 7 ad v o c a t i v e , r e q u i r i n g p r o s e c u t o r s who wi s h t o k e e p wi tn e s s es d e ta in e d to “ s ta te w h yth e w itn e s s [ e s ] s h o u ld n o t b e re le a s e d .” H er e, as di s cus s ed, Schney der does notcont end thatSm i th w as o b lig a ted to u n d e rta k e th is s o rt o f a d v o c a c y . S h e a rg u e s o n ly th a t S m ith w a s o b lig a ted to in f o rm Ju d g e M e a n s th a t O ver by had bee n cont i nued.

24 w i th o rwi th o u ta d e p o s i t i o n b e i n g t a k e n u nder R u le 15 (a). F ED
. R. C R IM
. P. 4 6 (h ). T h is ru le, li k e Ju d g e M ea n s’s o rde r, obl i gat es the pr os ecut ort o keep the court i nform ed of the s t atus of det ai ned mat er i al w i tnes s es . T he gi s t of the pr ovi s i on — the bi w eekl yr eport i ng r equi r em en t — i s pl ai nl yadmi ni s tr at i ve. T h e p ro se c u to r is re q u ire d to “ list” a ll d e tain e d w itn e ss e s, n o t to adv ocate anypart i cularact i on w i th regard t o those w i tnesses. 7
M o re o v e r, R u le 4 6 (h ) , w h ich is in ten d e d to “ e lim in a te u n n e c e ss a ryd e ten tio n ,” s u g g e sts th a t 10 da ys is th e u p p e r lim it forhol di ng m at er i al w i tnes s es w i thoutnot i ce t o the courtand a w r i t t en j us t i fi cat i on fo r “ w h ythe w i tnes s s houl d notbe release d

. ” H ere , S m ith w as h eld f o r ov er 50 da

ys w i thoutnot i ce t o t he courtora j us t i fi cat i on of anyki nd fr om Sm i th. I n s h o rt , i ti s a j udi ci al funct i on — the func t i on of the c o u rts — n o t a p ro se c u to ria l f u n c tio n , to d e ter m in e w h o m to in c a rc e ra te a n d f

o r w h a t len g th o f

tim e . O n th e p a rticu lar f a c ts of thi s cas e, w e conc l ude thatonce O ver by w as co n ti nued,O d d a lso f a u lts M a lo n e f

o r “ f a ili n g to tak e a n yste p s to 8 have pl ai nt i ff r el eas ed fr om cus t ody ” and ne gl ect i ng t o “t ake the necessaryst eps t o p u ti nto m oti on the p rocess t o rel ease p lain tiff.” T h e re c o rd sh o w s th a t th e o n lyst e p n e c e ss a ryto eff ectuat e O dd’ s r el eas e w as forM al one t o not i fyJ udge N ei fi el d of hi s i ncar cer at i on. A s w e expl ai n, thi s s t ep r equi r ed n o a d v o c a c yo n M a lo n e ’s p a rt. 25 Sm i th’ s fai l ur e t o not i fythe courtaboutSchn ey der ’ s cus t odi al sta tu s w a s a n a d m in istra tiv e o v e rsig h t. A c c o rd in g ly , w e h o ld th a tS m i th w a s n o te n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i ty. B

. Kor vel

O dd W e tu rn n o w to th e e a sie r c a se o f K o rv e l O d d . A s w ith N i col e Schney der , w e begi n bydefi ning the acti n ques t i on. S e e , e.g ., Y

a rr is , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 6 ; Kulw i cki , 9 6 9 F. 2 d a t1 4 6 3; Schr ob , 948 F. 2d at1409. A ccor di ng t o O dd, A D A M al one fai l ed to not i fyt he r el evantauthor i t i es thatO dd r emai ned i ncar cer at ed des pi t e the di s m i s s al of the W ay cas e i n w hi ch O dd w as t o tes t i fy

. M al one, bycontr as t , char act er i zes hi s actas 8 “omi t t i ng t o s ee t o the r el eas e” of O dd aft erthe W

ay pr os ecut i on w as di s m i s s ed. Forthe r eas ons di s cus s ed pr evi ous l y , w e ac cept O d d ’s c h a ra c ter iza tio n o f M a lo n e ’s a c t. O dd’ s cas e pr es ent s a r el at i vel ycl ear ex am pl e of a s i tuat i on i n w hi ch t he pr os ecut or ’ s r ol e as an advoc at e forthe s ta te h a d c o n c lu d e d

. Y

a rr is , 4 6 5 F .3 d a t 1 3 7 ; s ee al s o Y bar r a v. R eno , 7 2 3 F .2 d 6 7 5 , 6 7 9 (9 th C ir. 1 9 8 4 ) (“ In a c tin g e ith e r to p r e s e r v e o rr e l e a s e e v i d e n c e , th e p r i m a ry [ i m m u n i ty]26 cons i der at i on, vi ew ed obj ect i vel y , i s w heth er t he pr os ecut or needs the evi dence to p ro se c u te
. ”) ( emphasi s added)

. W her eas th e c a se in w h ich S c h n e y d e r w a s to tes tifyw a s m e re ly cont i nued , the case in w hich O dd w as t o tes t i fyw as dis m is s ed

. A s the C our tof A p peal s forthe Second Ci r cui thas s t at ed: K e e p i n g a p e r s o n i n s t a t e c u s t o d y after the t erm i nat i on of al l char ges agai ns thi m has nothi ng t o do w i th conduct i ng a pr os ecut i on forthe s t at e. Si nce the handl i ng of a pr i s oneraft erthe compl et e conc l us i on of al l cr i m i nal char ges i s not a pr os ecut or i al t as k butr at heran admi ni s tr at i ve one, the di s tr i ct att orneydefe ndant s ar e ent i t l ed onl yt o the pr ot ect i on of qual i fi ed i m m uni tyfor a n yin v o lv e m e n t in [ p lain tiff ’s] se e m in g ly del ay ed tr ans ferback i nt o fede r al cus t odyaft er the final dis m i ssal of the st at e ch a rges ag ai nst h i m. P in a u d v . C o u n ty o

f Su ffo lk , 52 F. 3d 1139, 1151 ( 2d C i r . 1995) ( emp h asi s i n or i gi nal )

. B eca us e w e agr ee w i th the Second C i r cui t ’ s r eas oni ng, i t nece s s ar i l y fol l ow s that keepi ng a thi r dpa rt y w i tness i n s tat e cus t odyaft erthe t erm i nat i on of the p roce eding i n w hich he w as t o t est i fy has not hing t o do w ith c o n d u c tin g a p ro s e c u tio n f o r th e s ta te
. S e e G e rb itz , 860 F. 2d at 665 n. 4 ( s t at i ng i n di ct a thatnei th er a bs ol ut e norqual i fi ed im m u n ity w o u ld p ro tec t a p ro se c u to r w h o “ f a iled to a c t ti m e ly i n s ecur i ng [a mat er i al w i tnes s ’ s ] r el eas e af t erbei ng or der ed by the court ” t o do s o)

. I ns t ead, thi s i s an adm i ni s tr at i ve over s i ght27 b yth e p ro s e c u to r th a t d o e s n o t w a rr a n t a b s o lu te im m u n ity. See I m bl er , 424 U

. S. at430- 31. A n anal ogyt o ourpr opertys ei zur e cases i s i l l us tr at i ve. W e have concl uded thatw her e a c our tdet erm i ned thats ei zed pr operty w as notr el at ed t o the cr i m i nal defe ndant ’ s drug a c tiv itie s, th e p ro se c u to r’s d e lay i n re tu rn in g th a t p ro p e rtyin vi ol at i on of the court ’ s or derw as “i ncompreh en sibl e, ” s o the p ro s e c u to r w a s n o t en title d to a b s o lu te im m u n ity. R e itz , 125 F. 3d at 147. H er e, w hen J udge N ei fi el d di s m i s s ed the W ay cas e, O dd’ s t es t i m o ny , l i ke the pr opertyi n R e itz , w as no l onger r el evant t o an ongoi ng pr os ecut i on. N everthel es s , i n der ogat i on o f th e ter m s o f

th e “ ju d g e -o n ly ” w a rra n t, A D A M a lo n e f a iled to in f o rm Ju d g e N e if

ield th a t O d d w a s d e tain e d . If a p ro se c u to r is notent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni tyfori m pr oper l yr et ai ni ng a c h a tte l, a for tio ri he i s notent i t l ed t o abs ol ut e i m m uni tyfor i m pr oper l yr et ai ni ng a per s on. T he fac t thatthe W

ay prosecuti on w as t erm i nated i s al so cr i t ical bec aus e i tunderm i nes M al one’ s s ugges t i on thathe w oul d have ha d t o engage i n advoca cyt o s ecur e O dd’ s r el eas e. I ndeed, once J udge N ei fi el d di s cover ed t hatO dd r emai ned in c a rc e ra ted , sh e w a s “ f u rio u s” a n d im m e d iate lyre lea se d h im w i thouthear i ng any“advoc acy ” fro m any one. T he onl yact n e c e ss a ry to se c u re O d d ’s re lea se w a s n o tify in g Ju d g e N e if ield th a t h e re m a in e d in jail. M a lo n e ’s f a ilu re to p e rf

o rm th is s im p le admi ni s tr at i ve ac tcaus ed O dd’ s unnece s s arydet ent i on. I n s hor t , the pr i nci pal di s t i nct i on betw een t h is cas e and N ico le S c h n e y d e r’s is th a t h e re , the c a se in w h ich O d d w a s to t es t i fyw as t erm inated i ns t ead of cont i nued. A s w e have28 e x p l a i n e d , th i s d i s t i n c t i o n c u t s i n O d d ’ s f a v o r . A c c o r d i n g l y, h a v in g c o n c lu d e d th a t A D A S m ith w a s n o t en tit led to a b so lu te pr os ecut or i al i m m uni ty , w e r eadi l y concl ude that A D A M al one w a s n o te n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e p r o s e c u t o r i a l i m m u n i ty. I V. I n addi t i on t o the admi ni s tr at i ve natur e of the pr os ecut or s ’ act i ons , w e not e thatthe pol i cycons i der at i ons under l y i ng pr os ecut or i al i m m uni tycouns el agai ns tr ecogni zi ng absolut e i m m un i tyi n these cases

. T o deci de w h ethert o ext end abs ol ut e i m m uni tyunder § 1 98 3, the S up rem e C ou rtcon si ders w h e ther: (1) there i s a com m o n l aw tr adi t i on of ac cor di ng i m m uni tyi n s i m i l ar s i tuat i ons ; ( 2) deny i ng i m m uni ty w oul d s ubj ectthe pr os ecut or to the ch il li n g inf

luen ce o f

v ex ati o u s law su it s; an d (3) the re exi st a dequat e che cks on pr os ecut or i al abus e otherthan in d iv id u a l s u its a g a in s t th e p ro s e c u to r. See I m bl er , 424 U

. S. at 4 2 1 -2 9 ; B ur ns , 5 0 0 U .S . a t 4 9 2 -9 6 ; Kulw i cki , 969 F. 2d at1463. H e r e , n e i th e rth e D i s tr i c tC o u r tn o rth e p a r t i e s i d e n t i f y a com m on l aw tr adi t i on of ext endi ng abs ol ut e i m m uni ty t o a pr os ecut orforfai li n g t o not i fythe courtof the s t atus of a det ai ned w i tnes s . I ndeed, as J us t i ce W hi t e obs erved, “[t ]he re w as no abs ol ut e i m m uni ty at comm on l aw forpr os ecut or s other than abs ol ut e i m m uni tyfr om s ui t s f o rm al i ci ous pr os ecut i on and d e f a ma t i on. ” I

m bl er , 4 2 4 U

. S

. at 44 1 (W h it e, J. , co n cu rri n g ). Pl ai nt i ffs ’ compl ai nt s cannotbe fa i r l y anal ogi zed t o ei therof thes e ac t i ons beca us e Pl ai nt i ffs w ere nei therpr os ecut ed nor defa m ed. B oth w ere uni nd i ct ed thi rd- partyw i tnesses.29 S e c o n d , it is u n lik e ly th a t d e n y in g a b so lu te im m u n ityin thes e cases w oul d i nt er fer e w i th the pr os ecut or s ’ i ndepende nt deci s i onm aki ng b yexpos i ng them t o vexat i ous l i t i gat i on. Ac c e p t i n g P l a i n t i f

f s ’ a l l e g a t i o n s a s tru e , a s we mu s t , th e ADAs h ad no deci s i ons t o m ake. A D A Sm i th w as r equi r ed bycourt or der( and perhaps byl ocal cus t om ) t o not i fyJ udge M eans that O ver by w as cont i nued, an d A D A M al one w as r equi r ed bythe j udge- onl yw arr ant( and perhaps by loca l cus t om ) t o not i fy J udge N ei fi el d thatO dd had been det ai ned. A ft erthe pr os ecut or s per form ed thes e m i ni s t er i al t as ks , i t w as thej ud ges’ decis i on w hethert o rel ease Plai nti ffs. W e al s o not e thatthes e cas es di ffe rs i gni fi cant l yfr om m os tcas es i nvol vi ng pr os ecut or i al i m m uni ty . H er e, uni ndi ct ed thi r d- partyw i tnes s es , no tcr i m i nal defe ndant s , ar e s ui ng the A D A s . A l though one ca n i m agi ne the fl ood o f l i t i gat i on that w o u ld e n s u e if

e v e r y d e

fen da n t w ho thoughthe had be en w ro n g e d b ya p ro se c u to r co u ld su e , a s im ilar r e su lt i s n o t li k e ly t o fol l ow fr om perm i t t i ng det ai ned w i tnesses t o sue p rosecut ors. Fur therm o re, deny i ng the A D A s abs ol ut e i m m uni tydoes not m ean theyar e w i thoutpr ot ect i on fr om vexat i ous s ui t s . I ndeed, theym ays t i l l be ent i t l ed t o qual i fi ed i m m uni tyi f thei r ac t i ons w e re o b jec tiv e lyre a so n a b le in lig h t o f th e c o n stitu tio n a l rig h ts a f f e c te d

. C ar t er , 181 F. 3d at356. Fi nal l y , w e obs erve that by vi r tue of thei r s t atus as thi r dpartyw i tnes s es , Pl ai nt i ffs ar e notent i t l ed t o the pr ot ect i ons avail able t o cri m i na l de fe nd a nt s , i nc l ud i ng the ap pell at e process. Indeed , the fa i l ure of the A D A s t o n oti fyany on e of P l ai nti ffs’ sta tu s as su re d th a t n o t e v e n th e w a rra n t-issu in g ju d g e s w o u ld re v iew th e p ro p rie ty of th e ir c o n tin u e d d e ten tio n , thu s s h o rt-30 ci r cui t i ng the “cruci bl e of the j udi ci al pr oces s . ” B ur ns , 50 0 U. S. at 496. T hes e pol i cycons i der at i ons fur thers uppor tourhol di ng th a tn e i th e rS m i th n o rM a l o n e i s e n t i t l e d t o a b s o l u t e i m m u n i ty. V. I n s um , w e conc l ude t hatboth Sm i th and M al one fa i l ed to p e rf o rm a f u n d a m e n ta lly a d m in is tr a tiv e ta s k , v iz

. , n o t i f y i ng the w arr ant
- i s s ui ng j udges that Schney der and O d d r emai ned i ncar cer at ed af

t er i t w as cl earthatthei rt es t i m onyw oul d notbe neede d fo r q ui t e s om e t i m e, i f eve r . W e al s o fi nd thatthe pol i ci e s u n d e r l y i n g th e r ecogni t i on of pr os ecut or i al i m m uni tydo notapply w it h the s ame for ce i n thes e ca s es beca us e the aggr i eved pe r s ons are uni ndi ct ed thi r d- partyw i tnes s es r ather than cri m i nal defend ants
. Forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , w e hol d thatboth Schney der and O dd have s t at ed § 1983 cl ai m s ag ai ns tA D A s Sm i th and M al one. A ccor di ngl y , w e r ever s e the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s di s m i s s al o f S ch n ey d er’s claim ag ains t S m ith , af firm the D istri ct C o u rt ’s deni al of M al one’ s m ot i on t o di s m i s s O dd’ s cl ai m , and r emand b o th m a tte rs f

o r f u rth e r p ro c e e d in g s c o n sis ten t w ith th is opi ni on.