Giraldo v. Kessler, 694 F.3d 161

Kessler and Espinal, Queens County ADAs, appeal a district court ruling denying absolute prosecutorial immunity in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 case brought by Giraldo.
Giraldo alleged her civil rights were violated by interrogation after her boyfriend, Monserrate, was arrested; she claimed unlawful detention and coercive questioning.
Monserrate was arrested following the December 19, 2008 incident; Giraldo had previously been treated for a head injury and transported to the 105th Precinct.
Appellants interviewed Giraldo at the Queens District Attorney’s Office for about two hours after her hospital treatment and before her case proceeded to court.
The district court denied absolute immunity, concluding the conduct resembled investigative rather than prosecutorial function.
On interlocutory appeal, this court vacates and remands in light of the appropriate functional approach to prosecutorial immunity.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the interrogation of a witness by prosecutors falls within absolute immunity.	Giraldo argues the interrogation was investigative, not prosecutorial, and thus not immunized.	Appellants contend the interview was an integral part of prosecutorial advocacy and within absolute immunity.	Yes; the interview fell within absolute immunity.
Whether the acts were reasonably related to prosecutorial functions such that absolute immunity applies.	Giraldo contends the acts were purely investigative and not within prosecutorial advocacy.	Appellants maintain the acts occurred during pending/prospective court proceedings and were within advocacy.	Yes; acts were reasonably related to prosecutorial functions.
What is the appropriate standard for reviewing denial of absolute immunity on appeal?	Review should consider the merits de novo as a pure legal question.	Review should apply collateral order doctrine for legal questions on denial of immunity.	Collateral order review applies; denial is reviewable as a legal question.

Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (absolute immunity for prosecutorial functions in court and related activities)
Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 509 U.S. 259 (U.S. Supreme Court 1993) (distinguishes investigative vs. prosecutorial immunity; but some actions remain within immunity when related to advocacy)
Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342 (2d Cir. 2000) (investigative acts receive only qualified immunity; advocacy-related acts may receive absolute immunity)
Smith v. Garretto, 147 F.3d 91 (2d Cir. 1998) (distinguishes investigative steps from acts integral to prosecutorial advocacy)
Warney v. Monroe County, 587 F.3d 113 (2d Cir. 2009) (post-trial prosecutorial actions can be integral to advocacy and immune)
Hill v. City of New York, 45 F.3d 653 (2d Cir. 1995) (collateral order doctrine allows appellate review of immunity rulings)