In a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding, the court determined that one witness had lied, and that an inadequate investigation by Wiley's Deputy Public Defender deprived him of exculpatory witnesses. The court set aside the conviction, and the prosecutor declined to retry the case. Wiley then sued the Deputy Public Defender for legal malpractice. The trial court ruled that Wiley's innocence was not an issue. A civil malpractice plaintiff only needs to show that the attorney's negligence caused damage.
Different considerations apply to malpractice claims arising out of criminal proceedings.
The criminal defendant's own act remains the ultimate source of his predicament regardless of his attorney's subsequent negligence. Further, the criminal defendant has other protections against malpractice. The burden of proof is more stringent. If the attorney is incompetent, post-conviction relief is available based on the Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel. That remedy is sufficient reparation, unless the criminal defendant can also show actual innocence.