Opinion ID: 1163878
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Question: (1) Is an indigent criminal defendant whose trial ends with a hung jury entitled to a transcript at government expense to enable him to prepare for a new trial?

Text: Yes. It was established in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 [100 L.Ed. 891, 76 S.Ct. 585, 55 A.L.R.2d 1055], that an indigent defendant is entitled to a free transcript on appeal from a judgment of conviction. This right has been extended to cover a transcript of prior proceedings when such transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal. Thus, the Supreme Court of the United States in Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227 [30 L.Ed.2d 400, 403, 92 S.Ct. 431], said:  Griffin v. Illinois and its progeny establish the principle that the State must, as a matter of equal protection, provide indigent prisoners with the basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners. While the outer limits of that principle are not clear, there can be no doubt that the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceedings when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal. [2] (Cf. Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 370 [21 L.Ed.2d 601, 604, 89 S.Ct. 580].) (2) Petitioner's affidavit of indigence and the representation by his counsel that petitioner would be eligible for the public defender's services except for the lien arrangement were not controverted; and respondent court made no finding that petitioner is not indigent. Accordingly, since a free transcript would have been provided petitioner had he been represented by the public defender, and since the district attorney has obtained a transcript at public expense, petitioner would be denied equal protection of the laws if he, also, were not furnished a free transcript. (3) Although we hold that petitioner is entitled to a free transcript of his previous trial, the question remains whether he is entitled to the complete transcript he has requested or whether a portion of the transcript will suffice to assure him an adequate defense upon retrial. As stated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189, 194-195 [30 L.Ed.2d 372, 378-379, 92 S.Ct. 410]: A `record of sufficient completeness' does not translate automatically into a complete verbatim transcript.... We emphasize, however, that the State must provide a full verbatim record where that is necessary to assure the indigent as effective an appeal as would be available to the defendant with resources to pay his own way. Moreover, where the grounds of appeal, as in this case, make out a colorable need for a complete transcript, the burden is on the State to show that only a portion of the transcript or an `alternative' will suffice for an effective appeal on those grounds. (4) It should be noted that the remedy of a pretrial writ is appropriate in the present case. The remedy of going to trial and appealing if petitioner should be convicted would not be speedy or adequate; such a procedure would entail personal hardships for petitioner, as well as a waste of public time and funds. Let a peremptory writ of prohibition issue. Respondent court is directed to vacate its order denying petitioner's motion for a free transcript of the proceedings at his first trial and to proceed in a manner consistent with the views expressed herein.