Imbler v. Pachtman

Supreme Court of the United States · 1976 · Federal Courts

424 U.S. 409 (1976)

Updated August 1, 2026

Federal Courtsprosecutorial immunity42 U.S.C. § 1983§ 1983absolute immunityprosecutorjudicial processinitiating prosecution

Facts

Imbler was prosecuted and convicted of murder by District Attorney Pachtman. After post-trial investigation, Pachtman disclosed new information bearing on Imbler's alibi and on the trustworthiness of a key witness, but later federal habeas proceedings found prosecutorial misconduct and Imbler was released when the State chose not to retry him. Imbler then sued Pachtman under § 1983 for damages, alleging that Pachtman knowingly used false testimony, suppressed material evidence, and otherwise helped cause his unlawful conviction. The alleged acts all arose from Pachtman's role in prosecuting the criminal case.

Issue

Whether a state prosecuting attorney who acts within the scope of his duties in initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution may be sued for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged deprivations of the defendant's constitutional rights. More specifically, the question was whether those prosecutorial acts are protected by absolute immunity.

Rule

In initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case, a prosecutor is absolutely immune from a civil suit for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The immunity applies to activities intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Phoenix, prosecutor Dana Mercer tried Omar Velez for armed robbery. After Velez's conviction was vacated, he filed a § 1983 damages action alleging Mercer knowingly presented a witness whose testimony she believed was false during direct examination and closing argument.

Is Mercer immune from Velez's § 1983 damages suit?

Explanation. The majority held that a prosecutor is absolutely immune from a § 1983 suit for damages for conduct in initiating a prosecution and presenting the State's case. That immunity applies even when the plaintiff alleges malicious or dishonest conduct, because the functional focus is on the nature of the act. Examining witnesses and arguing to the jury are classic advocacy functions intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.