Whether this Court should overrule a halfcentury of precedent that has inaccurately interpreted the intent and purpose of Section 1983 by affirming immunity protection for the very defendants that the Act was originally intended to confront and apply, for the first time, the Notwithstanding Clause of the original law (the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871) and the 42d Congress's decision to abrogate the common law in civil rights actions, including qualified and absolute immunities

ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Whether this Court should overrule a halfcentury of precedent that has inaccurately interpreted the intent and purpose of Section 1983 by affirming immunity protection for the very defendants that the Act was originally intended to confront and apply, for the first time, the Notwithstanding Clause of the original law (the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871) and the 42d Congress’s decision to abrogate the common law in civil rights actions, including qualified and absolute immunities. 2. Whether a criminal defendant can allege a Section 1983 claim for a Brady violation for failure to disclose potentially exculpatory evidence when the defendant was not convicted of a crime. 3. Whether a prosecutor is entitled to absolute immunity when the prosecutor inserted herself in an investigative process when modifying a _ search warrant affidavit and vouched for the modification with her signature even where the wrongful actions were post indictment and related to a judicial proceeding. (i)