Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
§ 1983 for violating a person’s federal constitutional rights when he or she engages in activities “intimately associated with the judicia 49 (6th Cir.1975)). Prosecutors are a proceedings, a prosecutor may receive only qualified immunity when acting in a capacity that is exclusively investigatory or administrative. See, e.g., Buckley, 609 U.S. at 274 n. 5, 113 S.Ct. 2606 (stating that “[o]f course, a determination of probable cause does not guarantee a prosecutor absolute immunity from liability for all actions taken afterwards. Even after that determination, as the opinion dissenting in part, points out, a prosecutor may engage in ‘police investigative work’ that is entitled to only qualified immunity”) (citation omitted); Guzman-Rivera v. Rivera-Cruz, 55 F.3d 26, 28 (1st Cir.1995) ; Houston v. Partee, 978 F.2d 362, 367 (7th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a  1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony
B. holding that prosecutors have absolute immunity
C. holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from claims alleging conspiracy to present false testimony but witnesses including police officerwitnesses are not absolutely immune from such claims
D. holding that the prosecutors were not entitled to absolute immunity for any delays or inadequacies in their conduct of the investigation after  1983 plaintiff had been convicted but that they were absolutely immune for their posiinvestigation failure to go into court to seek guzmans release
E. holding that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability for their knowing or inadvertent failure to disclose materially exculpatory evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.