§ 611.12

Dziubak v. Mott · 1993 2 citations

IV. We, like the United States Supreme Court, recognize the essential role performed by the defendant's attorney within our adversarial system of justice. This role is no less important when performed by counsel appointed to represent an indigent accused of a crime. If defense were available only to those of means, there would be no justice at all. Rather, an adequate defense must be available to all criminal defendants, and must be provided to those who do not have resources to obtain counsel by their own means. The judge, district attorney, and public defender are parts of a courtroom triumvirate. Each has a function which is essential to the working of the triumvirate. Each has a function which is essential to the working of the system. The public defender's role is that of an adversary to the prosecutor — not an adversary of the system but an integral part of it. * * * [S]ociety reaps the benefit from a smoother functioning criminal justice system. Stephen L. Millich, Public Defender Malpractice Liability in California, 11 Whittier L.Rev. 535, 537-38 (1989). Since justice demands that a defense be provided to criminal defendants who are not able to afford privately retained counsel, it is essential that a sufficient number of qualified attorneys be willing and able to provide this defense. Immunity will aid in the continued recruitment of attorneys to perform this service in our criminal justice system; such service is eagerly sought by most attorneys. The accused defendant is not the sole beneficiary. Society as a whole depends upon the role of defense counsel to secure an ordered system of liberty and justice, as ordained by our Constitution. The extension of immunity to public defenders will ensure that the resources available to the public defender will be used for the defense of the accused, rather than diminished through the defense of public defenders against civil suits for malpractice. Immunity will conserve these resources to provide an effective defense to *778 the greatest number of indigent defendants. Reversed. GARDEBRING, Justice (dissenting). By this opinion the majority denies to poor criminal defendants a civil remedy for the failure of their counsel to provide them an adequate defense. This action creates de facto just the kind of two-tier criminal justice system that the Supreme Court hoped to obliterate in its landmark decision, Gideon v. Wainright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S.Ct. 792, 9 L.Ed.2d 799 (1963). I can find no justification for such a result and I respectfully dissent. I would hold that public defenders are not immune from suit for malpractice. The majority opinion focuses on the differences between privately retained counsel and lawyers who practice as public defenders, noting particularly that public defenders may not reject a client, but are obligated to represent whomever is assigned to them. They are, in effect, part of a coerced relationship. Indeed! But the real disadvantage is, of course, to the indigent defendant, whom we have said has no right to choose his lawyer, State v. Fagerstrom, 286 Minn. 295, 299, 176 N.W.2d 261, 264 (1970), but must depend on whomever is assigned in matters that are of the most extreme gravity. If the public defender fails in the task of representation, he or she may be subject to an unfavorable performance appraisal; but the client may be unfairly convicted of a crime and sentenced to prison. The presence of remedies to overturn the conviction due to ineffectiveness of counsel cannot fully "right the wrong" done to someone who may have spent extended periods of time incarcerated unjustly. I believe that a civil remedy is needed. Furthermore, the majority opinion seems to reflect a lack of confidence in the professional qualifications of the attorneys who serve as public defenders. I believe that public defenders are highly experienced professionals who provide the best possible defense based upon the financial limitations of their organizations. While the majority considers it an unfair burden to subject the public defender to malpractice stemming from acts or omissions due to impossible caseloads and an under-funded office, factors out of the control of the defender, it is even more unfair that the indigent client should suffer from misrepresentation due to under-funded offices. I do not believe this court should sanction the chronic underfunding of public defense organizations by lessening the obligations which public defenders have to their indigent clients.[1] Furthermore, in the absence of immunity, I do not believe there would be an onslaught of malpractice suits filed against public defenders. First, public defenders are doing an admirable job under difficult circumstances and it is the rare case which would survive a motion to dismiss. Second, because of their indigence, defendants who have had public defenders will find it difficult to retain counsel to represent them in a malpractice suit against a public defender unless the circumstances are so outrageous as to be obvious malpractice.[2] Finally, immunity is not necessary to preserve the ability to recruit and maintain dedicated professionals willing to serve as public defenders. There is no shortage of private attorneys willing to do criminal defense work without immunity. In addition, indemnity likely to be provided by the state for any malpractice awards removes any possible deterrence to recruitment and assures that public defenders will be devoted to their clients' cases with no fears of conflict of interest. See Stephen L. Millich, *779 Public Defender Malpractice Liability in California, 11 Whittier L.Rev. 535, 542 (1989). While the cost in resources to defend such claims may be high and the resources of the public defender's office are limited, this does not justify denying a remedy to indigent clients which is available to other defendants who are more economically advantaged. NOTES [1] In 1917 the legislature created a public defenders office in counties with a population of 300,000 or more people. Act of April 21, 1917, ch. 496, §§ 1-7, 1917 Minn.Laws 835-36 (codified as amended at Minn. Stat. § 611.12 (1988)). This was repealed by the Act of June 3, 1989, ch. 335, art. 3, § 57, subd. 2, 1989 Minn.Laws 2932. [2] Dziubak pleaded guilty to one count of second degree manslaughter and was sentenced to Stillwater prison. After serving 15 months of his sentence, Dziubak petitioned the district court, through privately retained counsel, to vacate his guilty plea. During investigation, it was discovered that Dziubak's defense expert had misread the toxicology report, which indicated fatal levels of anti-depressants in the decedent's blood. The court vacated the guilty plea based upon a finding that, through the fault of neither Dziubak, Mott, nor Hankes, exculpatory evidence existed which could have resulted in an acquittal. Respondent was then tried and acquitted of murder.

+ 1 more citation in this opinion.