With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 102 S.Ct. 2690, 73 L.Ed.2d 349 (1982) (Burger, C.J., concurring) ("[T]he Constitution provides no hint that either judges, prosecutors, or congressional aides should be so protected [through absolute immunity]. Absolute immunity for judges and prosecutors is seen to derive from the common law and public policy.... ”). And while "[flew doctrines were more solidly established at common law than the immunity of judges from liability for damages for acts committed within their judicial jurisdiction,” Cleavinger v. Saxner, 474 U.S. 193, 200, 106 S.Ct 496, 88 L.Ed.2d 507 (1985) (quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 553-54, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967)), the same was not true for contempt or criminal liability, Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9, 10 n. 1, 112 S.Ct. 286, 116 L.Ed.2d 9 (1991) (<HOLDING>); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503, 94

A: holding that state judges are absolutely immune from  1983 liability except when acting in the clear absence of all jurisdiction
B: recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability
C: holding witnesses are absolutely immune from suit for damages with respect to testimony
D: holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983
B.