TO PREVENT RETALIATION, PROSECUTORS HAVE TRADITIONALLY BEEN GRANTED AN ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY FROM CIVIL LIABILITY FOR ACTS PERFORMED IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL DUTY. HOWEVER, PREJUDICIAL PRETRIAL STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA AND OTHER FORMS OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT CAN RESULT IN THE VIOLATION OF THE PROSECUTOR'S DUTY TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT'S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS. THE CODE OF PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY PROVIDES ONE MEANS OF DETERRENCE OF PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT THROUGH DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS, THOUGH IN FACT, SUCH PROCEEDINGS ARE RARE. SIMILARLY, LOCAL COURT RULES AND APPELLATE REVERSALS OF CONVICTION PROVIDE FURTHER PROTECTION OF DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS. ONE SOLUTION TO THE SHORTCOMINGS INHERENT IN THIS PROTECTIVE MECHANISM LIES IN SECTION 1983 OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1871 WHICH PERMITS A CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION AGAINST ANY PERSON WHO ABROGATES THE RIGHTS OF ANOTHER GRANTED BY THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS. A RECONSIDERATION OF OFFICIAL IMMUNITY UNDERTAKEN BY THE COURTS HAS LED TO A MORE QUALIFIED IMMUNITY WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE ACTION BE WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE OFFICIAL'S DUTY AND IS IN GOOD FAITH. IN IMBLER VERSUS PACHTMAN, 424 U.S. 409 (1972), THE SUPREME COURT EXAMINED THE HISTORICAL REASONS FOR GRANTING IMMUNITY TO PROSECUTORS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SAME LEGITIMATE INTERESTS EXIST IN A SECTION 1983 CASE AS IN EARLIER IMMUNITY CASES. THE SUPREME COURT DISMISSED THE CASE ON GROUNDS OF PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY FOR ACTS DONE AS PART OF TRADITIONAL OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS. UNDERLYING THIS DECISION IS A CONCERN WITH PROTECTING THE PROPER FUNCTIONING OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IMBLER DOES NOT ESTABLISH ABSOLUTE PROSECUTORIAL IMMUNITY IN ALL SITUATIONS. RATHER, THE TEST FOR SUCH IMMUNITY WILL BE WHETHER THE POTENTIAL FOR LIABILITY WILL HINDER THE PROSECUTOR IN THE EXERCISE OF HIS JUDICIAL DUTIES. AN ANALYSIS OF POLICY CONSIDERATIONS RECOGNIZED IN THE IMBLER DECISION INDICATES THAT ABSOLUTE IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT EXTEND TO SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE PROSECUTOR MAKES PREJUDICIAL PUBLIC STATEMENTS; IN FACT, THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE DICISION WOULD SUGGEST THE OPPOSITE CONCLUSION AS PREJUDICIAL STATEMENTS TO THE MEDIA ARE THEMSELVES A THREAT TO THE JUDICIAL PROCESS. ELEMENTS OF THE ACTION, PROOFS OF PREJUDICE, AND DAMAGES IN A CIVIL LIABILITY ACTION UNDER SECTION 1983 ARE EXAMINED. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT WHILE STANDARDS OF PROOF AND UNCERTAINTY OVER PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS OF EXHAUSTION OF STATE REMEDIES AND RES JUDICATA MAY MAKE SUCH A CIVIL CASE DIFFICULT TO SUSTAIN, THE EXISTENCE OF A POSSIBLE CIVIL REMEDY MAY PROVE A DETERRENT TO IMPROPER EXTRAJUDICIAL COMMENT BY PROSECUTORS. (JAP)