i think it -- and i think burns v. reed -- and the relevant language is at page 492 -- i think is -- is relevant because it says that it's pretrial conduct, in order to secure the testimony for trial or the like is -- is what is protected as well, that it would be far too narrow to just focus on the trial itself, and that would be the contours of absolute immunity. i think justice kennedy's opinion in buckley is also instructive in this regard, because what that opinion says is that allowing only immunity for the trial would just allow individuals to constantly replead their allegations and focus only on the pretrial conduct and be an end run around absolute immunity. and, again, absolute immunity is important not for the prosecutor for his own sake or her own sake, but because ultimately that is what -- that causing -- damage liability will -- will make prosecutors flinch the performance of their duties more generally. >> you don't -- you don't think there's a reason to make prosecutors flinch against willy-nilly -- that's

i think it -- and i think burns v. reed -- and the relevant language is at page 492 -- i think is relevant because it says that it's pretrial conduct, in order to secure the testimony for trial or the like is what is protected as well, that it would be far too narrow to just focus on the trial itself. that would be the contours of absolute immunity. i think justice kennedy's opinion in buckley is also instructive in this regard, because what that opinion says is that allowing only immunity for the trial would just allow individuals to constantly replead their allegations and focus only on the pretrial conduct and be an end run around absolute immunity. and, again, absolute immunity is important not for the prosecutor for his own sake or her own sake, but because ultimately that is what -- that causing -- damage liability will make prosecutors flinch the performance of their duties more generally. >> you don't -- you don't think there's a reason to make prosecutors flinch against willy-nilly -- that's not what i'm claiming h

i think it -- and i think burns v. reed -- and the relevant language is at page 492 -- i think is relevant because it says that it's pretrial conduct, in order to secure the testimony for trial or the like is what is protected as well, that it would be far too narrow to just focus on the trial itself. itself. that would be the contours of absolute immunity. i think justice kennedy's opinion in buckley is also instructive in this regard, because what that opinion says is that allowing only immunity for the trial would just allow individuals to constantly replead their allegations and focus only on the pretrial conduct and be an end run around absolute immunity. and, again, absolute immunity is important not for the prosecutor for his own sake or her own sake, but because ultimately that is what -- that causing -- damage liability will make prosecutors flinch the performance of their duties more generally. >> you don't -- you don't think there's a reason to make prosecutors flinch against willy-nilly -- that's not what i'm cl