Courts have extended absolute immunity to prosecutors for conduct 'intimately associated with the judicial phase' of a case — initiating charges, presenting evidence, and making strategic decisions during prosecution — even where that conduct is later shown to have been wrongful or in bad faith. The immunity is functional, meaning it depends on the nature of the act rather than the prosecutor's title, so the same official may receive only qualified immunity for administrative or investigative acts performed outside the advocacy role.

This creates a recurring line-drawing exercise in civil rights litigation: was the challenged conduct part of the prosecutor's role in presenting the state's case to a court, or was it more akin to police investigative work — gathering evidence, giving legal advice to police before charges, or making public statements — which typically receives only qualified immunity or no immunity at all.

A Juricratic simulation of a claim against a prosecutor treats the function performed, not the defendant's job title, as the controlling input to the immunity gate dial — the same official can appear as absolutely immune on one alleged act and only qualifiedly immune on another within the same case.

Civil rights counsel carefully characterizes each challenged act by a prosecutor-defendant as either advocacy-function or investigative/administrative-function conduct, since that characterization alone often determines whether the claim survives a motion to dismiss.