Wiley v. County of San Diego

BROWN, J.

When a former criminal defendant sues for legal malpractice, is actual innocence a necessary element of the cause of action? For reasons of policy and pragmatism, we conclude the answer is yes.

Factual and Procedural Background

Because a full recital of the underlying facts is not pertinent to resolution of the question presented, we relate them only in brief: In September 1990, plaintiff Kelvin Eugene Wiley (Wiley) was arrested and charged with burglary and various assaultive crimes against Toni DiGiovanni, a former girlfriend with whom he had a stormy relationship. At arraignment, he denied the charges and Deputy Public Defender John Jimenez was appointed to represent him. Wiley claimed he had been at his apartment at the time of the alleged crimes, and Jimenez arranged for an investigator to contact witnesses and prepare a report. The investigator had only limited success in finding anyone to establish an alibi. In the meantime, Wiley took a polygraph test, which Jimenez was informed he “had not passed.”

At trial, DiGiovanni, the only percipient witness, testified that after Wiley entered her condominium in a rage, he hit her repeatedly with a wrench, threatened to kill her, and strangled her with a belt until she lost consciousness. Her 11-year-old son, Eric, testified that he found his mother lying on the floor and that Wiley had physically abused her on prior occasions. He also stated he saw Wiley's truck drive into the cul-de-sac where they lived the morning of the alleged attack. Taking the stand in his own behalf, Wiley denied attacking DiGiovanni and said she had been following and harassing him because he wanted to break off their relationship. According to his landlord, Wiley's truck was parked outside his duplex early on the morning of the alleged assault, and he did not see Wiley enter or leave his residence. Numerous character witnesses also attacked DiGiovanni's credibility.

A jury convicted Wiley of battery causing serious bodily injury, but could not reach verdicts on the remaining counts, which the prosecutor dismissed. Wiley was sentenced to four years in state prison. While his appeal was pending, he filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus challenging Jimenez's representation as ineffective due to his inadequate investigation of the defense. In support of the petition, he submitted declarations from several of DiGiovanni's neighbors, none of whom had been contacted by the defense investigator. In sum, they stated they had seen DiGiovanni driving away from her residence early on the morning in question and later saw a man other than Wiley banging on her door and shouting, “Let me in.” They noticed no signs of injury in the days following the incident. The trial court denied the petition, finding Wiley had failed to establish that the investigation, preparation, or trial strategy had been inadequate.

A year later, Wiley filed a second habeas corpus petition. In addition to the previous declarations, he submitted evidence DiGiovanni's son had recanted his statement that Wiley's truck was at the condominium the morning of the alleged attack. The court granted the petition, finding that the son had lied at trial and that his testimony was crucial to the conviction. As a second basis for granting relief, the court determined Jimenez's inadequate investigation had deprived Wiley of exculpatory witnesses. The prosecutor later dismissed the case.

Wiley then filed the present legal malpractice action against Jimenez and the County of San Diego (defendants). Prior to trial, the court determined Wiley's innocence was not an issue and refused to require proof on the matter or submit the question to the jury. The jury found in favor of Wiley and awarded him $162,500. On appeal, defendants challenged, inter alia, the trial court's ruling on the issue of actual innocence. In support of their argument, they cited Tibor v. Superior Court . . ., in which the appellate court “concluded that, as a matter of sound public policy, a former criminal defendant, in order to establish proximate cause [in a legal malpractice action], must prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, not only that his former attorney was negligent in his representation, but that he (the plaintiff) was innocent of the criminal charges filed against him.” . . .

The Court of Appeal reversed the judgment because the trial court erroneously admitted the transcript of the second habeas corpus hearing and erroneously excluded certain evidence on which Jimenez based his trial strategy: the polygraph examination, a psychological evaluation of Wiley, and a prior domestic violence incident. Defendants' arguments on the question of actual innocence were rejected, however. The court acknowledged the “visceral appeal” of imposing such a requirement, but declined to do so for several reasons. First, “it is 'difficult to defend logically a rule that requires proof of innocence as a condition of recovery, especially if a clear act of negligence of defense counsel was obviously the cause of the defendant's conviction of a crime.' . . .” Second, creating a separate standard for clients represented in a criminal setting is “fundamentally incompatible” with the constitutional guaranty of effective assistance of counsel. Third, no empirical evidence supported the rationale, advanced by some courts, that the threat of malpractice claims would discourage representation of criminal defendants, particularly those who are indigent. Finally, an actual innocence requirement would create “rather artificial distinctions” between criminal defense attorneys and civil attorneys.

We granted review to resolve the conflict in the Courts of Appeal and settle an important issue of state law.

Discussion

In their seminal commentary, Justice Otto Kaus and Ronald Mallen remarked on the “dearth of criminal malpractice litigation,” noting only a handful of reported cases nationwide as of 1974. . . . Today by contrast, they would find a plethora of decisions, generated by the ever-rising tide of professional negligence actions generally. . . . Nevertheless, this court has yet to address any aspect of criminal malpractice, including the relevance of the plaintiff's actual innocence.

In civil malpractice cases, the elements of a cause of action for professional negligence are: “(1) the duty of the attorney to use such skill, prudence and diligence as members of the profession commonly possess; (2) a breach of that duty; (3) a proximate causal connection between the breach and the resulting injury; and (4) actual loss or damage. . . .” . . . In criminal malpractice cases, the clear majority of courts that have considered the question also require proof of actual innocence as an additional element. . . .

Common to all these decisions are considerations of public policy: “ '[P]ermitting a convicted criminal to pursue a legal malpractice claim without requiring proof of innocence would allow the criminal to profit by his own fraud, or to take advantage of his own wrong, or to found [a] claim upon his iniquity, or to acquire property by his own crime. As such, it is against public policy for the suit to continue in that it ”would indeed shock the public conscience, engender disrespect for courts and generally discredit the administration of justice.“ . . .” . . .

Additionally, “allowing civil recovery for convicts impermissibly shifts responsibility for the crime away from the convict. This opportunity to shift much, if not all, of the punishment assessed against convicts for their criminal acts to their former attorneys, drastically diminishes the consequences of the convicts' criminal conduct and seriously undermines our system of criminal justice. . . .” . . . “[I]f plaintiffs engaged in the criminal conduct they are accused of, then they alone should bear full responsibility for the consequences of their acts, including imprisonment. Any subsequent negligent conduct by a plaintiff's attorney is superseded by the greater culpability of the plaintiff's criminal conduct. . . .” . . . Accordingly, “[t]hese cases treat a defendant attorney's negligence as not the cause of the former client's injury as a matter of law, unless the plaintiff former client proves that he did not commit the crime.” . . .

Notwithstanding these policy considerations, actual innocence is not a universal requirement. . . . Those courts declining to require such proof generally do not discuss the public policy implications but simply consider criminal malpractice as indistinguishable from civil malpractice. For example, in Krahn v. Kinney, . . . defense counsel failed to convey a plea bargain offer and his client ultimately pled guilty to a more serious charge than offered. The reviewing court allowed the client's subsequent criminal malpractice action to proceed without proof of innocence, analogizing to what it considered comparable negligence in a civil context. “The situation is like that in a civil action where the attorney fails to disclose a settlement offer. Such failure [exposes] the attorney to a claim of legal malpractice. . . .” . . .

We find these latter decisions unpersuasive. To begin, the public policy reasons articulated in favor of requiring proof of actual innocence are compelling. Our legal system is premised in part on the maxim, “No one can take advantage of his own wrong.” . . . Regardless of the attorney's negligence, a guilty defendant's conviction and sentence are the direct consequence of his own perfidy. The fact that nonnegligent counsel “could have done better” may warrant postconviction relief, but it does not translate into civil damages, which are intended to make the plaintiff whole. . . . While a conviction predicated on incompetence may be erroneous, it is not unjust. “Arguably, ... the values which favor the accused in the context of the criminal process lose their validity when that process comes to its end. For example, what would be the result of a public opinion poll which asks this question: 'Should a lawyer have to pay damages to a guilty client because he negligently fails to secure an acquittal?' Surely a very substantial percentage of those polled would say that the guilty client is not entitled to damages since-God works in mysterious ways-'justice' was done.” . . .

Only an innocent person wrongly convicted due to inadequate representation has suffered a compensable injury because in that situation the nexus between the malpractice and palpable harm is sufficient to warrant a civil action, however inadequate, to redress the loss. . . . In sum, “the notion of paying damages to a plaintiff who actually committed the criminal offense solely because a lawyer negligently failed to secure an acquittal is of questionable public policy and is contrary to the intuitive response that damages should only be awarded to a person who is truly free from any criminal involvement.” . . . We therefore decline to permit such an action where the plaintiff cannot establish actual innocence. . . .

The public policy rationale is strongest when the malpractice plaintiff claims that some species of trial-related error resulted in a conviction. In other circumstances, where guilt is conceded or undeniable, it admittedly gives rise to a certain tension if counsel's negligence nonetheless caused a less favorable outcome. Kaus and Mallen anticipated this conflict: “Paradoxically, perhaps, the temptation to urge the relevance of actual guilt is strongest in situations in which the malpractice may be the least excusable, such as the lawyer's failure to raise a defense available to the client which would have prevented the prosecution from even going to trial. Thus, if the lawyer failed to make a motion to suppress a balloon of heroin which had been stomach-pumped from the client after he swallowed it when threatened by an illegal arrest, the client should be entitled to a directed verdict on the issues of malpractice and causation; yet if actual guilt is relevant, he should be nonsuited. The paradox arises, of course, from the fact that the malpractice is liable to be most obvious where it consists of a failure to raise what, for want of a better word, we may call a 'technical' defense-one which would result in a favorable disposition of the criminal proceedings without the issue of the client's guilt ever being submitted to a jury. In many cases the 'technical' defense will be the only one the client has: if not asserted, a conviction is a foregone conclusion.” . . .

Even courts adopting an actual innocence prerequisite have noted this quandary. “[A] requirement that a plaintiff, the former criminal defendant, must prove his innocence of the crime with which he was charged may relieve the defendant attorney, his former counsel, of liability for harm that the plaintiff suffered only because of his defense counsel's negligence. For example, if a defendant attorney failed to assert a clearly valid defense of the statute of limitations, a client who did commit the crime, but should not have been convicted of it, sustained a real loss, but he may not recover against the attorney defendant.... [¶] ... [¶] It may be difficult to defend logically a rule that requires proof of innocence as a condition of recovery, especially if a clear act of negligence of defense counsel was obviously the cause of the defendant's conviction of a crime.” . . .

This theoretical dilemma is predicated in part on too literal a translation of the civil malpractice model, which operates on strict “but for” principles of causation. In a civil malpractice action, the focus is solely on the defendant attorney's alleged error or omission; the plaintiff's conduct is irrelevant. . . In the criminal malpractice context, by contrast, a defendant's own criminal act remains the ultimate source of his predicament irrespective of counsel's subsequent negligence. Any harm suffered is not “only because of ” attorney error but principally due to the client's antecedent criminality. Thus, it is not at all difficult to defend a different rule, because criminal prosecution takes place in a significantly different procedural context, “and as a result the elements to sustain such a cause of action must likewise differ.” . . .

In larger part, the expressed concern fails to account for the nature and function of the constitutional substructure of our criminal justice system. For example, “it is clear that our society has willingly chosen to bear a substantial burden [by requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt] in order to protect the innocent ....” . . . “The standard provides concrete substance for the presumption of innocence-that bedrock 'axiomatic and elementary' principle whose 'enforcement lies at the foundation of the administration of our criminal law.' . . .” . . . Indeed, “[c]ompliance with the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is the defining, central feature in criminal adjudication, unique to the criminal law. . . . Its effect is at once both symbolic and practical, as a statement of values about respect and confidence in the criminal law, . . ., and an apportionment of risk in favor of the accused . . .” . . . Simply put, it is “bottomed on a fundamental value determination of our society that it is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free.” . . .

The exclusionary rule allows “[t]he criminal ... to go free because the constable has blundered.” . . . Nevertheless, irrespective of the cost “ 'there is another consideration-the imperative of judicial integrity.' . . . The criminal goes free, if he must, but it is the law that sets him free.” . . . “[T]he purpose of the exclusionary rule 'is to deter-to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively available way-by removing the incentive to disregard it.' . . .” . . .

These and other constitutional protections are to safeguard against conviction of the wrongly accused and to vindicate fundamental values. They are not intended to confer any direct benefit outside the context of the criminal justice system. Thus, defense counsel's negligent failure to utilize them to secure an acquittal or dismissal for a guilty defendant does not give rise to civil liability. . . . Rather, the criminal justice system itself provides adequate redress for any error or omission and resolves the apparent paradox noted in case and commentary. All criminal defendants have a Sixth Amendment right to effective assistance of counsel; that is, counsel acting reasonably “ 'within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.' . . .” . . . Not only does the Constitution guarantee this right, any lapse can be rectified through an array of postconviction remedies, including appeal and habeas corpus. Such relief is afforded even to those clearly guilty as long as they demonstrate incompetence and resulting prejudice, i.e., negligence and damages, under the same standard of professional care applicable in civil malpractice actions. . . .

[. . .]

In such instances of attorney negligence, postconviction relief will provide what competent representation should have afforded in the first instance: dismissal of the charges, a reduced sentence, an advantageous plea bargain. In the case of trial error, the remedy will be a new trial. If the defendant has in fact committed a crime, the remedy of a new trial or other relief is sufficient reparation in light of the countervailing public policies and considering the purpose and function of constitutional guaranties. . . . Those courts analogizing to civil actions have not considered the implications of postconviction relief for ineffective assistance of counsel. . . . Given that availability, it is inimical to sound public policy to afford a civil remedy, which in some cases would provide a further boon to defendants already evading just punishment on “legal technicalities.” . . .

In contrast to the postconviction relief available to a criminal defendant, a civil matter lost through an attorney's negligence is lost forever. The litigant has no recourse other than a malpractice claim. The superficial comparison between civil and criminal malpractice is also faulty in other crucial respects. . . . Tort damages are in most cases fungible in the sense that the plaintiff seeks in a malpractice action exactly what was lost through counsel's negligence: money. “Damages” in criminal malpractice are difficult to quantify under any circumstances. Calculating them when, for example, counsel's incompetence causes a longer sentence would be all the more perplexing. . . .

Tort law also operates on very different legal principles from the constitutionally reinforced and insulated criminal justice system. “Tort law provides damages only for harms to the plaintiff's legally protected interests, [citation], and the liberty of a guilty criminal is not one of them. The guilty criminal may be able to obtain an acquittal if he is skillfully represented, but he has no right to that result (just as he has no right to have the jury nullify the law, though juries sometimes do that), and the law provides no relief if the 'right' is denied him.” . . . Moreover, “[t]he underpinnings of common law tort liability, compensation and deterrence, do not support a rule that allows recovery to one who is guilty of the underlying criminal charge. A person who is guilty need not be compensated for what happened to him as a result of his former attorney's negligence. There is no reason to compensate such a person, rewarding him indirectly for his crime.” . . .

Reinforcing this conclusion are the pragmatic difficulties that would arise from simply overlaying criminal malpractice actions with the civil malpractice template. In civil actions, carrying the burden on causation is relatively straightforward and comprehensible for the jury, even if it necessitates a “trial within a trial.” The factual issues in the underlying action are resolved according to the same burden of proof, and the same evidentiary rules apply. Thus, it is reasonably possible for the malpractice jury to assess whether and to what extent counsel's professional lapse compromised a meritorious claim or defense. . . .

By contrast, “the prospect of retrying a criminal prosecution [is] 'something one would not contemplate with equanimity ....' ” . . . The procedure outlined in Shaw v. State, Dept. of Admin., . . . suggests this estimation is not exaggerated: “[T]he standard of proof will be a complex one, in essence, a standard within a standard. [Plaintiff] must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that, but for the negligence of his attorney, the jury could not have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” . . . Moreover, while the plaintiff would be limited to evidence admissible in the criminal trial, the defendant attorney could introduce additional evidence, including “any and all confidential communications, as well as otherwise suppressible evidence of factual guilt.” . . . The mental gymnastics required to reach an intelligent verdict would be difficult to comprehend much less execute. . . . Avoiding such a procedure is also consistent with “ 'a strong judicial policy against the creation of two conflicting resolutions arising out of the same or identical transaction.' . . .” . . .

We would also anticipate attorneys might practice “defensive” law more frequently to insulate their trial court decisions. “[I]n our already overburdened system it behooves no one to encourage the additional expenditure [of] resources merely to build a record against a potential malpractice claim.” . . .

For the foregoing reasons, we hold that in a criminal malpractice action actual innocence is a necessary element of the plaintiff's cause of action. Therefore, on retrial Wiley will have to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he did not commit battery with serious bodily injury.

Disposition

We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeal and remand to that court with directions to remand the cause to the superior court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

The concurring and dissenting opinions are omitted.