That case says prosecutorial absolute immunity doesn’t apply for all official acts of a prosecutor. And it’s a prosecutor. And it’s civil liability.
Now we know what took the DC COA so long to rule...
- Thread starter cosmickid
- Start date
Yeah, but otherwise it's dead nuts on point. Neener neener.
That’s nice. Of course it has nothing to do with immunity in a criminal action.
Right. Absolute prosecutorial immunity applies in all cases where the conduct is within a prosecutorial function. That is narrower than all official acts and explains almost all deviations from absolute immunity. (This is why I always advised prosecutors they have no absolute immunity for investigating, like advising on search warrants.). The CA never examined or discussed this important issue.
Of course I’m aware this is a civil case. I don’t know of any court that applied different standards, at least in the last 120 years or so.
So it’s not absolute.
And, by the way, that case is being decided on a motion to dismiss. The court analyzed the allegations and determined if prosecutorial immunity applied assuming the truth of the allegations without any need for fact finding.
Yes it is for the essential functions of the office. So long as the official is in immunity territory, it’s absolute and there are no exceptions.
