I completely get where you are coming from, but I also understand the spirit of protecting the prosecutor so he can do his job. Face it, its not really the prosecutors job to look over what the cops found, he has to trust the cops, if he doesn't trust the cops he can never ever prosecute a case, thats just fact. The cops are always the ones who find the facts for the prosecutor, if you want the prosecutor to go over every little thing your just being silly. Take a person fighting a speeding ticket in court... nine times out of ten its the cops word vs. the citizens word. By your standard of the prosecutor has a responsibility to prove the cop was telling the truth, he would have to let all speeders off, because speeding is almost never proved by anything but the word of the cop. Even the speed taken could be doctored by the cop, so all speeding tickets should be dismissed, so the prosecutor does not have to risk being sued. Same with most resisting arrest charges, drunk driving (hey the cop could have rigged the breath analysis by having someone else blow in it first or some other method. Now, don't misunderstand me, if you can prove that the prosecutor knew the evidence was fake, planted, or in some way altered, then yes, sue the pants off the guy. But if you can't prove he actually knew it was fake, i think immunity is appropriate. i hate immunity, but if anybody needs it to do their job reasonably well, its prosecutors. Again proving intent should matter, even in a civil case.if it is obvious that he knew what the cops were doing thats different, if you can prove that he knew the cops were giving him fake evidence fine, which in this case i think you probably could, it sounds as if cops changed their story multiple times when talking with him, thats something i think is worth stripping immunity it proves intent to ignore evidence that might allow the defendent to get off. Actually, no, immunity would be stripped if the prosecutor himself fabricated it, against another prosecutor, now if he used evidence given to him by police that was fabricated no he should not be prosecuted for it, unless of course you can prove intent, civil or legal.