With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “reasons for absolute immunity applied] with full force” to the conduct at issue because it was “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” The fact that one constitutional duty at issue was a positive duty (the duty to supply “information relevant to the defense”) rather than a negative duty (the duty not to “use ... perjured testimony”) made no difference.... In the years since Imbler, we have held that absolute immunity applies when a prosecutor prepares to initiate a judicial proceeding, or appears in court to present evidence in support of a search warrant application. We have held that absolute immunity does not apply when a prosecutor gives advice to police during a criminal investigation, when the prosecutor makes statements to the press, r.1978) (<HOLDING>). Id. at 340 (some citations omitted).

A: holding that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from a suit claiming that he destroyed and falsified evidence
B: holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983
C: holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony
D: recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability
A.