With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". direct violation of trial court orders); see also Imbler, 424 U.S. at 425-r26, 96 S.Ct. 984 (recognizing that the decisions concerning the materiality of evidence not revealed to the defense could impose unique and intolerable burdens upon a prosecutor responsible annually for hundreds of indictments and trials). Furthermore, Cignetti’s attempt to defeat the defense of absolute prosecutorial immunity by fashioning his claim in terms of a conspiracy is not effective. See Pinaud v. County of Suffolk, 52 F.3d 1139, 1148 (2d Cir.1995) (quoting Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653, 659 n. 2 (2d Cir.1995)) (“[W]hen the underlying activity at issue is covered by absolute immunity, the ‘plaintiff derives no benefit from alleging a conspiracy.’ ”); Dory v. Ryan, 25 F.3d 81, 83-84 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, as discussed more extensively

A: recognizing that a judge is not absolutely immune from criminal liability
B: holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims
C: holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for their knowing or inadvertent failure to disclose materially exculpatory evidence
D: holding michigan friend of the court employees absolutely immune from suit under  1983
B.