# Reese v. Danforth

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · October 9, 1979 · 486 Pa. 479

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761420

## Case

- **Full name:** Paul A. REESE, Appellant, v. Theodore S. DANFORTH, Public Defender, Lancaster County, and Mary Ann Motter, Law Clerk, Public Defender’s Office, Lancaster County, and Grant H. Fleming, Assistant Public Defender, Lancaster County
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** October 9, 1979
- **Citations:** 486 Pa. 479; 406 A.2d 735; 6 A.L.R. 4th 758; 1979 Pa. LEXIS 696
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Roberts
- **Judges:** Eagen, Larsen, Manderino, Nix, O'Brien, Pomeroy, Roberts
- **Cited by:** 53 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761420

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that pre-DuBree “a mere public employee having no policy-making functions was not entitled to [a]ny immunity, whether it was absolute or conditional.”
- declining to afford public defenders public official immunity; the public has an interest in ensuring the availability of court- appointed counsel to represent indigent criminal defendants, but once the appointment is made, a public defender’s public function ceases and he fun…

## Opinion text

ROBERTS, Justice,
concurring.
The public interest is not served by insulating public defenders from claims of negligence. Thus, our established caselaw precludes a grant of immunity to these defendants. See DuBree v. Commonwealth, 481 Pa. 540 , 393 A.2d 293 (1978).
My recently expressed view as to the inappropriateness of immunity for appointed counsel is equally applicable here. Like appointed counsel, the public defender “does not need any more discretion, freedom, or encouragement to exercise his professional judgment and skill than does privately retained counsel.” Ferri v. Ackerman, 483 Pa. 90, 100 , 394 A.2d 553, 558 (1978) (Roberts, J., joined by Larsen, J., *490 dissenting), cert. granted, 440 U.S. 907 , 99 S.Ct. 1213 , 59 L.Ed.2d 454 (1979).
Litigants represented by the public defender are entitled to the same quality of legal assistance required of privately retained counsel. Immunity would only permit less zealous representation and deny to those who cannot afford private counsel an equal remedy for their injuries. See Ferri , (dissenting opinion), supra.
Accordingly, I agree that the complaint against these defendants was improperly dismissed.
LARSEN, J., joins in this concurring opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9761420. Public record. Not legal advice.