Further supporting their decision to raise the hurdle in criminal malpractice cases, the Court also raised the specter of burdens of proof. The Court concluded that criminal malpractice cases simply do not fit within the civil malpractice paradigm. It is ultimately hard to distinguish civil and criminal law malpractice on these grounds. The Court has consistently held that outcome determinative errors can support reversal based on ineffective assistance of counsel. To support such relief, it is generally not essential that the error go to the merits of proof of innocence.
Procedural errors can suffice.
It may be that the Court believes that ineffective assistance appeals are a sufficient remedy. Thus, the hidden rationale may be a concern that the courts will be burdened with a flood of nuisance claims from the idle incarcerated if the bar to such claims is too low. This publication is intended for general information purposes only and does not constitute nor is intended to constitute legal advice. The reader must consult with legal counsel to determine how laws or decisions discussed herein apply to the reader's specific circumstances including whether the case may have been depublished after the date of this publication.