## Facts

- Stephen Buckley sued a county state’s attorney and assistant prosecutors under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for conduct tied to his investigation and prosecution for the rape and murder of an 11-year-old girl in DuPage County, Illinois.
- Buckley alleged prosecutors faced intense public pressure and sought an indictment by fabricating false evidence and inflaming public sentiment.
- A bootprint at the crime scene was central evidence; three forensic entities allegedly could not reliably match it to boots Buckley provided.
- Buckley alleged prosecutors then obtained a “positive identification” from an out-of-state anthropologist purportedly known for unreliable testimony, and used that evidence to secure an indictment.
- After the indictment, the state’s attorney held a press conference announcing it about twelve days before a primary election in which he was a candidate; Buckley alleged false statements were made to gain votes and prejudice him.
- Buckley was jailed for about three years while the case proceeded; the first trial ended in a hung jury.
- After the expert died, the prosecution dismissed the charges and Buckley was released.
- Lower courts disagreed on whether the prosecutors were absolutely immune from damages for the alleged evidence fabrication and press statements.

## Issues

1. Whether prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages for allegedly fabricating evidence during a pre-indictment investigation.
2. Whether prosecutors have absolute immunity from § 1983 damages for allegedly false statements made to the media at a press conference announcing an indictment.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the court of appeals and remanded.
- Absolute immunity did not cover alleged pre-indictment evidence fabrication because the prosecutors were functioning as investigators seeking probable cause, not as advocates in judicial proceedings.
- Absolute immunity did not cover the press conference statements because such out-of-court comments lack a functional connection to the judicial process and had no common-law absolute immunity.
- The Court did not decide whether qualified immunity applied, leaving that and merits questions for further proceedings.

## Legal Principles

- Immunity under § 1983 turns on function, not official title: courts examine the nature of the act performed.
- Prosecutors receive absolute immunity only for acts “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” such as initiating prosecution and presenting the state’s case.
- When prosecutors perform investigative tasks ordinarily done by police (e.g., searching for clues or corroboration to establish probable cause), they are entitled at most to qualified immunity.
- Convening a grand jury or moving forward with prosecution does not retroactively convert earlier investigative work into advocative conduct protected by absolute immunity.
- Prosecutors’ statements to the press are not protected by absolute immunity.

## Conclusion

The Court held that prosecutors cannot claim absolute immunity for pre-indictment investigative conduct alleged to fabricate evidence or for press statements announcing an indictment; only qualified immunity may be available, subject to further proceedings.


Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (1993)