In the United States and state courts, judges, defense attorneys, and the prosecutor's office enjoy full immunity in the performance of their duties. In short, if a judge or district attorney makes a bad decision, or if a decision is reached using means that are contrary to judicial and/or legal ethics, that person cannot be held accountable except by state order or judicial authority . Prosecutorial misconduct takes advantage of these immunities designed to protect ethical prosecutors and employ them for reasons ranging from power to pressure, to cutting corners and an excessive need to “win at all costs.” The concept of judicial immunity, while broad, is not as absolute as many might think. When investigating, the authority must look at the “nature of the function performed, not at the identity of the actor who performed it”. As established in Forrester v. White, (1988) (Justia, Supreme Court Center). This is known as the “functional test” of immunity. When a prosecutor engages in “defensive” conduct, that is, “acts within the scope of his duties in initiating and prosecuting criminal proceedings,” Imbler v. Pachtman, that person is absolutely immune from legal action (Justia, Supreme Court Center). However, if in carrying out the defense conduct the prosecutor during the trial improperly fabricated evidence and withheld evidence of an alternative suspect, can that prosecutor be sued? This was the subject of a lawsuit brought by the defendants in Pottawattamie County v. Mcghee (Oyez Project). Citing absolute immunity, the Eighth Circuit Court reached a unanimous decision that such conduct did not fall within defensive conduct and therefore a prosecutor could be held liable for ... middle of paper ..., including but not limited to to prosecutors who are unwilling to take some to court; fewer people willing to become prosecutors, leading to more plea bargaining and an increase in the length of time before a case goes to trial; possibly denying the accused the right to a speedy trial. Furthermore, not having immunity could make matters worse as attorney misconduct could be even more underreported for fear of retaliation. Ultimately, not having blanket immunity won't solve the problem: more vigorous oversight and more funding would go hand in hand with increased accountability, plus it would be the ethical lawyer who has the most to lose. This quote best explains the reason for blanket immunity for prosecutors: “…better to leave wrongs committed by rogue officers unchanged than to subject those seeking to do their duty to the constant fear of retaliation” (Lexis Nexis).