Fields v Wharrie

In section 1983 action alleging that defendants (two assistant state’s attorneys) solicited false testimony in plaintiff’s murder trial, Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant-Wharrie’s motion to dismiss case on grounds of absolute immunity, even though defendant’s acts took place after first trial, when said defendant was no longer acting in capacity of lead prosecutor. Record showed that said defendant still had prosecutorial disclosure obligations to plaintiff under Brady and Giglio, which allowed said defendant to assert absolute immunity. Plaintiff also failed to state viable federal cause of action against said defendant where plaintiff had alleged that subsequent prosecutor (defendant Kelly) was aware of said falsification and still used said testimony. Moreover, plaintiff failed to state viable federal cause of action against defendant Kelly, even though defendant-Wharrie’s alleged act of solicitation took place before Kelly had become prosecutor in case, since any alleged violation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights took place at time of trial when defendant Kelly was using his prosecutorial discretion.