Legal Document

444 U.S. 193 100 Supreme Court Reporter 402 62 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 355 Francis Rick FERRI, Petitioner,v.Daniel ACKERMAN. Number 78-5981. Argued Oct. 2, 1979. Decided Dec. 4, Syllabus A Federal District Court, pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, appointed respondent attorney represent petitioner, an indigent defendant, in a federal criminal trial. After petitioner was convicted and pending his unsuccessful appeal, he sued Pennsylvania state court for alleged malpractice respondent's conduct The trial dismissed complaint on ground that immune from liability. affirmed, resting its decision law holding justification judicial immunity embraced system encompassing prosecutors grand jurors, as well judges, equally applicable defense counsel participants proceedings. Held: An by judge defendant is not, matter law, entitled absolute suit brought against him former client. Pp. 199-205. (a) There nothing language, legislative history, or basic purpose 1964 providing compensation court-appointed attorneys support conclusion must accept claim liability tort. fact compensated funds not sufficient basis inferring Congress intended grant suits. 199-201. (b) primary rationale granting prosecutors, other public officials—namely, societal interest such officials with maximum ability deal fearlessly impartially at large—does apply own In contrast officers court, office performed parallels privately retained counsel. Although serves statutory authorization furtherance insuring effective representation defendants, duty large, except general way. His principal responsibility serve undivided interests client, and, indeed, indispensable element performance responsibilities act independently Government oppose it adversary litigation. 202-204. 483 Pa. 90, 394 Atlantic Reporter, 2nd 553, reversed remanded. Julian N. Eule, Philadelphia, Pa., petitioner. John Pacific KF135 P2 Arness, Washington, D. C., respondent. Mr. STEVENS delivered opinion Court. 1 question whether is, 2 On August 28, 1974, jury Western named five counts nine-count indictment alleging had participated 1971 conspiracy construct use bomb violation various statutes.1 due course, petitioner's 1964.2 Respondent represented during pretrial proceedings 12-day found guilty all counts; imposed sentence 20 years bombing additional 10 charging violations Internal Revenue Code. judgments conviction were affirmed summarily Appeals Third Circuit.3 3 While appeal pending, March 1976, filed "complaint negligence" Common Pleas Union County, Pa.4 described 67 different instances prayed recovery substantial pecuniary damages.5 demurrer, asserting failed cause action any civil arising out defense. 4 Petitioner thereafter "Traversal Brief" which argued sufficiency supported sections Rules Civil Procedure Constitution.6 brief added negligently plead statute limitations bar Code indictment.7 5 Without ruling sufficiency, Pleas, sitting en banc, decided cases strong policy required lawyer be damages. cited one case8 but relied primarily authorities conclusion.9 By divided vote, order dismissal, squarely law. 6 Because case concerned participant proceeding, believed look determine exists if so, nature scope.10 reviewing common-law doctrine has been encompasses jurors concluded immunity—the concern threat harassment unfounded litigation might impair officer's official duties—was held privilege therefore applied even gross negligence though allegation did exercise counsel's discretion. 7 two dissenting justices agreed applicable, regarded more analogous than officer prosecutor. those who can afford retain their choosing have remedy malpractice, dissenters felt denial comparable would establish lower standard care 8 narrow issue presented this way pre-empts freedom State decide situation accord We are elements need speculate about consider allegations breach right recover damages.11 Nor we may conclude absolutely immune.12 For when creates action, free define defenses claim, including immunity, unless, rule conflict U.S.Const., Article VI, cl. 2. 9 purposes our analysis, appropriate assume prevail ask requires immunity. begin inquiry noting there separate arguably could application kind. provided appointment compensation, proceeding "officer" court. identification does however, demonstrate adopted recognized Court.13 (1) enactment (2) considering assigned duties. * enacted provide defendants trials.14 response evidence unpaid sometimes less diligent thorough counsel,15 reasonable improve quality indigents. suggested helpful inducing itself history indicate ever considered—much actually implement—any suggestion. Indeed, Congress' attempt minimize differences between counsel16 consistent view satisfy same standards professional subject controls.17 11 source Countless private citizens recipients kind another, surely intend actions taken course expending funds. 12 sum, find express II 13 relying explicit officers, captain Navy Postmaster General,18 certain claims appropriately characterized incident office. 14 sense, also officer. Since officers—the judge, prosecutor, jurors—enjoy virtue office, should shared marked difference court.19 As servants, prosecutor society whole. duties adversely affect wide variety individuals, each whom potential future controversy. large long acceptable immunity.20 point forestall atmosphere intimidation resolve perform designated functions principled fashion. 15 contrast, true fear charge will lead function. If anything, provides incentive function competently.21 client.22 16 It true, argues, valid reasons justify accorded See n. 17, supra. Perhaps most persuasive reason creating make sure competent remain willing work representing defendants. monetary significantly counsel, burden defending groundless charges unprofessional disproportionately significant, conceivable justified preserve supply lawyers available important work. Whether demonstrated rule, problem better remedied adjusting level questions answered body acting empirical data. Therefore do evaluate arguments. Having essential akin unlike naval captain, explicated like Howard versus Lyons, 360 593, 79 1331, 1454, andButz Economou, 438 478, 98 2894, 57 895, simply inapplicable case. Accordingly, without reaching concerning power create hold now 17 judgment reversed, remanded further inconsistent opinion. 18 so ordered. relevant sections, codified Code, are: KF62 §§ 371, 844(i); 26 5821, 5822, 5861, 5871. § 3006A. record indicates previously lawyers. first still pending; second permitted withdraw Ferri, 546 419 (1976). venue improper, later transferred Westmoreland County. prayer somewhat ambiguous. example, paragraph, suing behalf wife himself, asked "double contingent damages sustained direct result expenditure anxieties endured amount Six Hundred Thousand Dollars ($6,000,000.oo [sic]) jointly severally all." App. 20. wife, wrote clerk demanding she withdrawn plaintiff what "an abhorrent action." Id., 23. id., 31. Petitioner's 3-year contained 6531 applies counts. 5-year period 3282. According indictment, occurred 26, 1971. 1974. Absent tolling, asserts time barred. failure (or either previous lawyers, see supra ) prior trial, prison. Circuit rejected statute-of-limitations argument unpublished order, since raised appeal. 39. understanding validity 10-year yet determined collateral proceeding. Reese Danforth, Lancaster 131 June Term, aff'd per curiam, 241 Pa.Super. 604, 629 (1976) (holding county defenders suits). That after heard oral 486 479, 406 735 (1979). declined contention no jurisdiction based ineffective assistance because attack conviction. 42. "Since here asserted protecting legal does, scope. 1454 (1959). Carter Carlson, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 391-392, 447 358, 361-362 (1971); Chandler O'Bryan, 445 1045, 1055 (10th Cir. 1971); Garner Rathburn, 346 55, 56 1965). noted supra, very reference sovereign determination scope." 93, 555 (1978). Cf. Walker Kruse, 484 802 (CA7 1973). (1979), 8, When plaintiff's defining See, e. g., Lake Country Estates Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 391, 404, 99 1171, 1179, 59 401; Imbler Pachtman, 424 409, 417-419, 96 984, 988-989, 47 128; Pierson Ray, 386 547, 554, 87 1213, 1217, 288; Tenney Brandhove, 341 367, 376, 71 783, 788, 95 L.Ed. 1019. interest, present case, this, under amended 1970, rates $30 hour expended $20 reasonably minimum hourly rate established association district whichever lower), plus reimbursement expenses incurred. exceed $1,000 felony $400 where only misdemeanors charged. 3006A(d)(1), (2). H.R.Rep. 864, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., (1963), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News Page 2990; S.Rep. 346, (1963); 110 Cong.Rec. 454 (1964) (remarks Rep. Fraser); Hearings S. 63 et al. before Senate Judiciary Committee, 249 (1963). clearly wanted share much characteristic independence possible notwithstanding subsidy. This borne debate over include establishment fulltime defender offices original bill. version defenders. House bill least partly full-time too closely identified Government's efforts innocent, risk institutional reluctance adequately defend guilty. 18558 Moore, author bill): "The bill, addition authorizing empowered districts throughout country. effect placing administration justice totally hands Government. individual, accused crime, tried prosecuted attorney, defended defender. Thus, total fair preservation one's liberty solely dependent upon men Treasury. "This condition easily led totalitarian well-known unfairness inequities states. addition, severely undermined members N Immigration Nationality Decisions believe obligation [those] charged unpopular cause. burdens preserving healthy gradually eroded recent through great dependence seem desirable majority Members erosion. then, philosophy reported Senate." Moore); id. 455 McCulloch); H.R. 1027 Subcommittee prevailed conference, provision study defenders, particularly larger districts, permit supplement individual appointments 1970 amendments actions. THE CHIEF JUSTICE several ago, "defense . exactly highly paid, paid-in-advance lawyer." Burger, Counsel Prosecution Defense—Their Roles Under Minimum Standards, Am.Crim.L.Q. (1969). American Bar Association Project Standards Justice, Defense Function 3.9 (App.Draft 1971). argues defendant's relationship substantially inability choose freely discharge Plan IV A(3). tend perceive representative government suspicion. conviction, inevitable bitterness high retaliatory lawsuits, underlies judges prosecutors. Butz 510, 2912, 895. Further, increased actions, susceptible pressure clients call witnesses arguments prejudice But directed attention data—in decisions, hearings, scholarly studies—to conclusions deters accepting affects representation. Given speculative, implausible, arguments, unwilling ascribe intent given face silent point. 1454; Spalding Vilas, 161 483, 631, 40 780; Kendall Stokes, How. 87, 44 506. 19 Writing re Griffiths, 413 717, 728-729, 93 2851, 2858, 37 910, Powell responded holders governmental follows: "We note outset goes beyond Connecticut ordinary sense. 162 Conn. [249,] 254, 294 [281,] 283 [(1972)]. comports expressed Black Cammer States, 350 399, 76 456, 474 (1956): " 'It stated many times "officers court." One frequently repeated statements appears Ex parte Garland, Wall. 333, 378 [71 378], 366. pointed there, within meaning term. Certainly said Garland places category marshals, bailiffs, clerks judges. Unlike these engaged profession, justice. makes follows best judgment, collects fees runs business. word always conveys quite people serving conventional term.' 405 (footnote omitted)." Harlan Barr Matteo, 564, 571-572, 1335, 1340-1341, 1434: recognition often stated. thought unembarrassed damage suits respect acts done duties—suits consume energies otherwise devoted service appreciably inhibit fearless, vigorous, policies government. admirably Judge Learned Hand: indeed go saying official, using powers vent spleen others, personal motive connected good, escape injuries cause; practice confine complaints guilty, monstrous deny recovery. doing impossible know founded until tried, submit officials, innocent danger outcome, dampen ardor resolute, irresponsible, unflinching Again again calls turn mistake, himself hard put good faith. means punishing truant duties; another exposing honestly mistaken anyone suffered errors. answer balance evils alternative. instance end leave unredressed wrongs dishonest try constant dread retaliation. .' Gregoire Biddle, Cir., 177 579, 581." 21 rendered participation trials. 22 Our discussion confined address kinds tort defamation someone U.S., 512, S.Ct., 2913 (dictum).

Classification Label: 7