Court Opinion

ID: 9758594
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 23:37:40.793183+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:00:07.429710
License: Public Domain

SPAETH, Judge,
dissenting:
I believe that the lower court was correct in sustaining appellee’s preliminary objections and in dismissing appellants’ complaint, for two reasons: first, because appellee was immune by virtue of his position as Public Defender of Lycoming County; and second, because the statements allegedly made by appellee were absolutely privileged since they were made in the context of a judicial proceeding.
While the concepts of immunity and privilege have a common root, see Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation: Judicial Proceedings, 9 Colum.L.Rev. 463-490 & 599-616, they have developed in distinctive ways and therefore may best be dealt with separately.
I.
The immunity of a “high public official” from damage actions is based on the status of the defendant. If the *272defendant was such an official, he will not be held liable for damages so long as his acts were within the scope of his official duties. The scope of the immunity is exceedingly broad. It includes not simply defamation actions but all civil actions for damages, Jonnet v. Bodick, 431 Pa. 59, 244 A.2d 751 (1968); Matson v. Margiotti, 371 Pa. 188, 88 A.2d 892 (1952), and the defendant’s malice, or the extent of the damages the plaintiff has suffered, are unimportant. Thus in Matson v. Margiotti, supra, the Supreme Court said:
Absolute privilege, as its name implies, is unlimited, and exempts a high public official from all civil suits for damages arising out of false defamatory statements and even from statements or actions motivated by malice, provided the statements are made or the actions are taken in the course of the official’s duties or powers and within the scope of his authority, or as it [is] sometimes expressed, within his jurisdiction.
371 Pa. at 193-94, 88 A.2d at 895 (emphasis in original).
This sweeping immunity is not for the benefit of high public officials but for the benefit of the public. While an occasional official may regard the ability to commit a malicious tort with impunity as a perquisite of his office, this unfortunate consequence must be tolerated; the public’s officials will be more likely to engage in the vigorous pursuit of the public welfare if they are not inhibited by the possibility of being liable for damages:
[A]bsolute immunity is designed to protect the official from the suit itself, from the expense, publicity, and danger of defending the good faith of his public actions before a jury. And yet, beyond this lies a deeper purpose, the protection of society’s interest in the unfettered discharge of public business and in full public knowledge of the facts and conduct of such business. Absolute immunity is thus a means of removing any inhibition which might deprive the public of the best service of its officers and agencies.” Note, 20 U. of Chi.L.Rev. 677, 697 (1953). Montgomery v. Philadelphia, 392 Pa. 178, 183, 140 A.2d 100, 103 (1958).
*273To achieve this benefit to the public, the immunity must be absolute:
It has been argued, however, that free disclosure would be sufficiently encouraged by the granting of a qualified privilege. But often a person will be deterred from making communications by the risk that a trier of fact may find against him, even if he has acted reasonably and without malice. Moreover, since a qualified privilege does not eliminate the necessity of litigating questions of fact, such as improper motive or unreasonable conduct, the time and money required for this defense would also deter free disclosure. And in the case of public officials, time would be taken from performance of duties which are of importance to the public. .
Note, Developments in the Law of Defamation, 69 Harv.L. Rev. 875, 917-18 (1956).
See also, Barr v. Matteo, 360 U.S. 564, 79 S.Ct. 1335, 3 L.Ed.2d 1434 (1959).
While it is easy to define the scope of the immunity, it is not so easy to define who is a “high public official.” The cases do not say who is and who is not, but rather reflect a case by case determination by a somewhat amorphous standard. Thus in Montgomery v. Philadelphia, supra, our Supreme Court said:
It has been suggested that the determination of whether a particular public officer is protected by absolute privilege should depend upon the nature of his duties, the importance of his office, and particularly whether or not he has policy-making functions.
392 Pa. at 186, 140 A.2d at 105.
That this standard is somewhat amorphous may be seen from a review of some the officers held to be “high public officials”; the Attorney General, Matson v. Margiotti, supra; the Secretary of Highways (now Secretary of Transportation), DuBree v. Commonwealth, 8 Pa.Cmwlth. 567, 303 A.2d 530 (1973); Fischer v. Kassab, 25 Pa.Cmwlth. 593, 360 A.2d 809 (1976); a Township Supervisor, Jonnet v. Bodick, supra; a District Attorney, McCormick v. Specter, 220 Pa. *274Super. 19, 275 A.2d 688 (1971); Freach v. Commonwealth, 23 Pa.Cmwlth. 546, 354 A.2d 908 (1976), reversed on other grounds, 471 Pa. 558, 370 A.2d 1163 (1977); an Assistant District Attorney, the Superintendent of the Parole Division of the Board of Probation and Parole, and the Superintendent of the Farview State Hospital, Freach v. Commonwealth, supra; the City Architect and the Deputy Commissioner of Public Property of the City of Philadelphia, Montgomery v. Philadelphia, supra; the State Police Commissioner and a State Police Captain in charge of a local troop, Schroeck v. Pennsylvania State Police, 26 Pa.Cmwlth. 41, 362 A.2d 486 (1976).
To the majority, the controlling factor seems to be whether an official has a duty to report his activities to the public. Majority Opinion at 931. As the foregoing review demonstrates, however, that is not a factor common to others afforded the immunity. Cf. e. g. a State Police captain in charge of a local troop. Nor should it be controlling, as the Supreme Court of the United States has made plain:
That petitioner was not required by law or by direction of his superiors to speak out cannot be controlling in the case of an official of policy-making rank, for the same considerations which underlie the recognition of the privilege as to acts done in connection with a mandatory duty apply with equal force to discretionary acts at those levels of government where the concept of duty encompasses the sound exercise of discretionary authority.
Barr v. Matteo, supra, 360 U.S. at 575, 79 S.Ct. at 1341 (emphasis in original).
It is much more important to consider the duties and responsibilities of the particular officer and how he might be impeded in their performance if the immunity is not extended to him. Barr v. Matteo, supra; Freach v. Commonwealth, 471 Pa. 558, 571, 370 A.2d 1163, 1170 (1977) (Concurring and Dissenting Opinion by Roberts, J.).
In determining whether to extend absolute privilege to a communication by an official ... a court should consider the importance of the particular job being per*275formed by the official and the extent to which its performance will be hampered by allowing only a qualified privilege.
Note, Developments in the Law of Defamation, 69 Harv.L. Rev. at 919.
It follows from these considerations that the immunity extended to “high public officials” should be extended to a Public Defender. The public’s interest in providing — indeed, its duty to provide — free legal assistance to indigents accused of committing crimes will be better served by extending the immunity to a Public Defender than by not extending it. There is no justification for denying immunity to the Public Defender while extending it to his counterpart in the criminal justice system, the District Attorney. Such an imbalance can only make the Defender’s office less attractive than the District Attorney’s, and therefore less able to recruit qualified attorneys. Moreover, a Defender is particularly likely to be sued, for his clients are so often disappointed in the results of his efforts, and the threat of unwarranted civil actions by such ex-clients will encourage over-cautious policies in the Defender’s office, at the expense of innovative and vigorous representation. This reasoning has convinced the federal courts that have considered the question that the immunity should be extended to a Public Defender:
We perceive no valid reason to extend this immunity to state and federal prosecutors and judges and to withhold it from state-appointed and state-subsidized defenders. Implicit in the extension of judicial immunity to prosecutors was the recognition of a public policy encouraging free exercise of professional discretion in the discharge of pretrial, trial, and post-trial obligations. Indeed, the very reasons advanced to assert that the Public Defender acts under color of state law because of the favorable comparison of his activities with those of public prosecutors, would a fortiori, support an argument in favor of the public defender on the immunity issue.
*276Brown v. Joseph, 463 F.2d 1046, 1048-49 (3d Cir. 1972) cert. denied, 412 U.S. 950, 93 S.Ct. 3015, 37 L.Ed.2d 1003 (1973).
Accord, Minns v. Paul, 542 F.2d 899 (4th Cir. 1976); Waits v. McGowan, 516 F.2d 203 (3d Cir. 1975); John v. Hurt, 489 F.2d 786 (7th Cir. 1973).
I admit to disappointment with the majority’s narrow reasoning. Since immunity of “high public officials” is not limited to defamation actions but extends to all civil actions for damages, Jonnet v. Bodick, supra; Matson v. Margiotti, supra, the denial of the immunity must be as broad. While the majority has discussed only the reasons why the immunity should not be extended in the context of a defamation action (concededly the basis for the action in the present case), its denial of the immunity will affect other sorts of actions. In the federal cases the issue has arisen in the context of an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, it being alleged that a Public Defender, acting in his capacity as a public officer (see Pa.Const. Art. 9 § 4), has deprived a client of the right to competent legal representation. Brown v. Joseph, supra; Minns v. Paul, supra; John v. Hurt, supra. While the grant of immunity by the federal courts prohibits these actions, the rule announced by the majority today will merely transform the actions into state law claims for damages for negligent representation.
Consider, for example, Reese v. Danforth, 241 Pa.Super. 604, 360 A.2d 629 (1976). There this court affirmed per curiam the dismissal of an action against an Assistant Public Defender and a law clerk in the Defender’s office. The complaint alleged that the defendants had negligently defended the plaintiff in an involuntary commitment proceeding under the Mental Health and Mental Retardation Act of 1966, Act of Oct. 20, 1966, Special Sess. No. 3, P.L. 96, art. I, § 101 et seq., 50 P.S. § 4101 et seq. Among other things, it was alleged that the defendants had permitted the introduction of hearsay evidence. The lower court dismissed the complaint on the ground that the defendants were protected by immunity, citing John v. Hurt, supra, and Brown v. *277Joseph, supra. Under the majority’s decision today, a Public Defender and members of his office must defend such suits, and may be held liable for damages, so long as the complaint alleges malice.
Perhaps the majority intends this result, but I should find it reassuring had the competing policy considerations been discussed. The issue is not as the majority has chosen to frame it, whether “. . . public interest demands that a public defender be granted the privilege maliciously to publish untrue statements about others.” Majority Opinion at 271. This statement mistakenly regards the immunity as a perquisite of office, and fails to recognize it as a doctrine to protect the public. The proper way to frame the issue is to ask whether the public interest demands that a public defender be required to answer any and all civil actions arising out of the performance of his duties, simply because the actions contain an allegation of malice. For my part, I am persuaded, with the federal courts, that the public interest does not demand this result, but will be best served by protecting the Defender from such actions.
The unstated premise of the majority’s reasoning appears to be a fear that if immunity were granted, no punishment would be available to deter a Public Defender from the commission of intentional torts. Of course there is nothing to suggest that Public Defenders as a class are more likely tortfeasors than are officials who enjoy the immunity. In any event, there are available a number of remedies to deter a Defender from the commission of intentional torts. Upon finding that a Defender has committed an intentional tort, the Board of County Commissioners may fire him. See the Public Defender Act, Act of Dec. 2, 1968, P.L. 1144, No. 358, § 4; 16 P.S. § 9960.4. Moreover, such conduct would violate the Canons of Ethics and the Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement, 20 Pa.Code, Chap. 101, and be grounds for disbarment, which would also result in removal from the office of Public Defender. 16 P.S. § 9960.5(c). These remedies are at least as effective to prevent misbehavior as any remedies available against others granted immunity as “high public officials.”
*278II.
An alternative reason for affirming the dismissal of appellants’ complaint is that the statements allegedly made by appellee were absolutely privileged since they were made in the context of a judicial proceeding. This privilege, unlike the immunity of high public officials, is not based upon the status of the speaker but on whether the statements were made in the context of a judicial proceeding.1 The scope of the privilege also differs from the scope of the immunity, for by its nature it is generally limited to defamation actions. See Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation: Judicial Proceedings, supra.
The privilege is based on the policy that all parties, the witnesses, the judge, and the jurors, should be encouraged to speak frankly before the court, free of concern that they may later have to defend their statements in a defamation action. At first the privilege extended only to formal pleadings. Kemper v. Fort, 219 Pa. 85, 67 A. 991 (1907); Yearsley v. Franklin Lamp Mfg. Co., 97 Pa.Super. 538 (1930). Later, however, it became clear that it extended to all statements made in a judicial proceeding. Nagle v. Nagle, 316 Pa. 507, 175 A. 487 (1934). The privilege is absolute, and includes a malicious defamation. Binder v. Triangle Publications, Inc., 442 Pa. 319, 275 A.2d 53 (1971). The sole qualification is that the statements must be relevant to the proceedings. Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., 427 Pa. 511, 235 A.2d 576 (1967), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 907, 88 S.Ct. 2063, 20 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1968).
The majority concludes that appellee’s statements were made outside the scope of the judicial proceeding and therefore are not within the privilege. While the question is a close one, within the facts of this case I disagree.
Appellee had been appointed to represent Kim Lee Hubbard in the preparation of a post-conviction attack on Hubbard’s conviction for murder. The case involved a particu*279larly brutal attack on a 12 year old girl.2 As is predictable when such a murder occurs in a rural county, a significant amount of publicity surrounded the criminal proceedings against Hubbard, including the post-conviction proceedings. Statements made to the press by appellee concerning the case form the basis for the present defamation action. All appellants were state police officers who were involved in the investigation of the murder. The complaint alleges that appellee’s statements were defamatory in that they were made maliciously and accused appellants of improprieties during the course of the investigation. Shortly before the statements appellee had filed a brief with the lower court in support of his client’s post-conviction petition. The lower court has found in its opinion, and it is not disputed by appellants, that the statements “[were] no more than a reiteration of the contents of that Brief.” Slip Opinion at 6.
There is no question that the privilege extends to the brief itself; it was filed with the court in a pending proceeding, and allegations of impropriety on the part of investigating law enforcement officers are relevant to a challenge of a murder conviction. Greenberg v. Aetna Insurance Co., supra. There is also no question that the newspaper reports of appellee’s statements were themselves not actionable; they were reporting a noteworthy development in a case of wide community interest. Mongol v. Reading Eagle Co., 241 Pa. 367, 88 A. 660 (1913). The sole question is whether appellee’s “reiteration of the contents of [his] [b]rief” may form the basis of a defamation action. The majority holds that the reiteration amounted to a “republication” of the privileged statements in the brief, and since this was outside the scope of the judicial proceedings, the privilege was lost. Concededly, the majority’s position is supported by precedent in other jurisdictions. Washer v. Bank of America National Trust & Savings Assn., 21 Cal.2d 822, 136 P.2d 297 (1943); Murray v. Brancato, 290 N.Y. 52, 48 N.E.2d 257 (1943); see also, Note, Developments in the Law of Defama*280tion, 69 Harv.L.Rev. at 922. However, I am of the opinion that at least in this case those precedents should not be followed. The problem I see is that of defining precisely what is the prohibited republication. Since the statements could properly be made in the brief and in the newspapers, it is the act of supplying the statements in the brief to the newspapers that is held impermissible. However, once filed with the court the brief was public information. (There is no indication that any “gag orders” were imposed upon the parties by the court.) The newspapers presumably could have asked the Prothonotary to permit them to see the brief, or they might have asked appellee to give them a copy, which he might have done without making any comment. As I understand the majority’s reasoning, both of these hypothetical situations would be considered prohibited republication. To me, however, they both represent legitimate methods of furnishing to the public information that is of record, and both are indistinguishable from the present case. I would therefore construe the privilege to include appellee’s activity here.
The order of the lower court should be affirmed.
JACOBS, J., joins in this opinion.
HOFFMAN, J., joins in Part I of this opinion.

. Other proceedings may be afforded similar protection, e. g., legislative hearings. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 590A (1977). Here we need only consider a judicial proceeding.

. For a detailed discussion of the facts of Hubbard’s case, see Commonwealth v. Hubbard, 472 Pa. 259, 372 A.2d 687 (filed Jan. 7, 1977).