Does a prosecutor have a duty to present every item of arguably exculpatory evidence in seeking an indictment?

prosecutor "was under no duty to present every item of arguably exculpatory evidence in seeking an indictment." Savino v. City of New York, 331 F.3d 63, 75 (2d Cir. 2003).

Finally, we reject Burgess's alternative argument that probable cause dissipated at some point during his prosecution, thereby making defendants liable for its continuation. Where, as here, probable cause existed for the arrest, Burgess must show that probable cause dissipated at some point after the arraignment. See Gaston v. City of New York, 851 F. Supp. 2d 780, 793 (S.D.N.Y. 2012) (stating that probable cause must dissipate after the commencement of prosecution); Meija v. City of New York, 119 F. Supp. 2d 232, 254 (E.D.N.Y. 2000) (noting that prosecution commences at arraignment). Although Burgess presented arguably exculpatory evidence that developed after his arraignment, he failed to present sufficient evidence to permit a jury to find defendants responsible for continuing Burgess's prosecution.