Opinion ID: 617507
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alleged Withholding/Preserving of Evidence After a Criminal Prosecution Has Run its Course.

Text: Trainor argues that by withholding Flagler's cell phone, he is preserving evidence and that preservation of evidence is intimately associated with presenting the State's case. In Parkinson v. Cozzolino, we held that a prosecutor is absolutely immune for withholding/preserving evidence to be used in connection with a criminal prosecution, and that immunity extends throughout a subsequent appeal. 238 F.3d 145, 152 (2d Cir.2001). We made no determination, however, as to when such immunity ends. Id. We recognize the inherent conflict between Flagler's argument and a prosecutor's duty to defend a conviction. If we agreed with Flagler, absolute immunity would end once the time to appeal and collaterally attack a conviction had run. But some collateral attacks, like actual innocence, have no statute of limitations. And as technology advances, we learn of new tests and tools that make fact finding more precisetechnologies once thought inconceivable. Therefore, without fuller development of the issue by thoughtful briefing and factual development in the district court, we are unwilling to draw a line as to how long absolute immunity shields a prosecutor for withholding/preserving evidence. Rather, we recognize that Trainor did not raise Cozzolino below. We therefore vacate and remand the district court's order and judgment so it may consider whether Trainor is absolutely immune for preserving evidenceFlagler's cell phoneafter Becker's conviction became final. Of course, the district court need not address this issue if it deems summary judgment appropriate on the basis of qualified immunity.