Opinion ID: 1721035
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: Service of subpoena.

Text: Under the facts of the Zwicker case, we are of the opinion that the trial court did not err and Zwicker was not denied equal protection of the law when the trial court refused to order the service of subpoenas for the defendant at state expense. In considering this issue we are assuming the defendant was indigent. The defendant was charged with a misdemeanor and upon conviction the maximum penalty would be a fine of not more than $100 or imprisonment for not more than thirty days. There has been absolutely no showing that the defendant was in any way denied a fair trial as a result of the trial court's refusal to grant defendant's motion for service of subpoenas at state expense. The defendant did in fact call six witnesses in his defense and the record is barren of any showing that the trial court's ruling prevented the defendant from securing the attendance of any witness at his trial. The appellant contends that the service of subpoenas at state's expense is a logical extension of Griffin v. Illinois (1956), 351 U. S. 12, 76 Sup. Ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891. We think not. The Illinois appeal procedure, as in most states, required a transcript of the trial court proceedings. The United States Supreme Court held that the equal protection clause of the United States Constitution compelled the state to furnish a state-paid transcript of his criminal trial (a felony case) to a convicted indigent defendant who needed the transcript for appeal purposes. To hold otherwise would effectively deny the defendant of a full appellate review. The defendant in this case was not denied a fair trial or an appeal. On the record before us, it cannot be said that the defendant was denied equal protection of the laws.