Opinion ID: 1801524
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Request for Daily Transcripts and Funds for Attitudinal Survey

Text: The defendant urges that the trial court erred by denying his motions for daily transcripts and for funds to conduct an attitudinal survey, thus denying defendant equal protection of the law. While it is true that an indigent defendant, in order to put forth an adequate defense, must not only be assured of sufficient governmental funds with which to pay his court-appointed counsel, but also sufficient funds to provide for the necessary costs and expenses incident to the proceedings. . . . (SDCL 23-2-2), the issue here is whether or not the daily transcripts and attitudinal survey were necessary to provide defendant with the defense he was entitled to. Defendant frankly admits that the granting of this type of assistance to a defendant in a criminal action is in the sound discretion of the trial court. Therefore, in order to gain the point, defendant must demonstrate from the record that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the assistance requested. [2] The record in this case indicates that defendant was represented by at least three very competent attorneys and that para-legal assistance in the sum of $3,000.00 was expressly authorized by order of the court. It would seem that there was ample manpower available to the defendant for the taking down of pertinent testimony each day. Beyond this, the defendant failed on the record to make a factual showing that his defense was prejudiced by the trial court's failure to grant his motions. So far as this court has been able to determine, there is no constitutional requirement for the granting of daily transcripts or pretrial attitudinal survey to an indigent defendant. See Walle v. Sigler, 456 F.2d 1153 (8th Cir. 1972). The indigent criminal defendant is not entitled to the best defense money can buy; he is only entitled to a competent and meaningful defense. This court believes that the defendant received such a defense in this case and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the daily transcripts and funds for the attitudinal survey.