Fields v. Wharrie

Dist. Ct. erred in denying motion to dismiss by one defendant-prosecutor, where said defendant asserted that he was entitled to absolute immunity in plaintiff’s section 1983 action alleging that said defendant and another prosecutor deprived plaintiff of liberty under due process clause and committed tort of malicious prosecution by coercing witnesses to provide testimony that defendants and said witnesses knew to be false, which resulted in plaintiff’s wrongful conviction on two murder charges and his imprisonment for 17 years until his acquittal on retrial. Said defendant was entitled to absolute immunity, where his alleged procurement of false testimony took place in midst of plaintiff’s second trial, and thus said defendant was acting in his prosecutorial, as opposed to investigative role. Dist. Ct. did not err, though, in finding that other defendant-prosecutor was not entitled to absolute immunity, where complaint indicated that said defendant was acting in his investigative role when he allegedly fabricated evidence prior to plaintiff’s prosecution, and then introduced fabricated evidence at plaintiff’s first trial. (Partial dissent filed.)