Document: 373 U.S. 420 83 S.Ct. 1366 10 L.Ed.2d 456 Willie NORVELL, Petitioner,v.STATE OF ILLINOIS. No. 513. Argued April 24, 1963. Decided May 27, Thomas P. Sullivan, Elmhurst, Ill., for petitioner. William C. Wines, Chicago, respondent. Mr. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted murder in Illinois courts 1941 and sentenced to 199 years prison. Though indigent, he had a lawyer at trial. 2 On date sentence docket entry reads: 'Defendant Norvell's motion allowance 90 days' time which prepare file his bill exceptions allowed.' Presumably petitioner's made that motion, though record does not indicate one way or other. tried get transcript. But again whether acted on own through we do know. We know, however, because indigent unable pay costs transcript therefore did obtain it; not, moreover, pursue an appeal. 3 In 1956 decided Griffin v. Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, holding facts case it violation Fourteenth Amendment deprive person indigency any rights appeal afforded all other defendants. And see Draper Washington, 372 487, 774, 9 899; Eskridge 357 214, 78 1061, 1269. Cf. Burns Ohio, 360 252, 79 1164, 1209; Smith Bennett, 365 708, 81 895, 6 39. Thereupon Supreme Court adopted Rule 65—1 (Smith-Hurd's Ill.Ann.Stat., c. 110, § 101.65—1) by State provides free trial every crime, prior decision thereafter. An important exception rule, applicable here, is following: 4 '* * event court finds impossible furnish petitioner stenographic proceedings unavailability reporter who reported inability transcribe notes served trial, reason, shall deny petition.' 65—1(2). 5 requested The judge, finding satisfied conditions prescribed Rule, ordered official shorthand with copy It subsequently appeared, question died some earlier no could read notes. effort then reconstruct testimony persons attended Ten witnesses testified, including petitioner, but none recall much evidence introduced Thus possible supply adequate appellate review conviction failed time. supra. judge heard this entered order denying new affirmed. 25 Ill.2d 169, 182 N.W.2d 719. here petition writ certiorari. 371 860, 135, 98. 7 issue has 'invidious discrimination' against supra, p. 18, 590. More precisely, when cannot be obtained reconstructed fault State, may constitutionally draw line indigents lawyers their after remedy? face its rules draws such distinction. application denied relief case.1 so have narrow question—whether avoid obligation where, without fault, can available, having remedy been sought 8 If appeared represented refused represent him prevented from retaining another, would different case. Douglas California, 353, 814, 811. Petitioner, testified hearing claim. Nor lawyer, as follows: 'I independent recollection there were motions regular course All constitutional guarantees my client, Norvell, asserted I case, give defendant guarantee law affords. now ever called upon matter. trial.' 11 say found waived only hold applying situations where available due death reporter, Due Process Equal Protection Clause those who, presumably continuing services purposes appeal2 yet Exact equality prerequisite equal protection laws within meaning Amendment. See As said Tigner Texas, 310 141, 147, 60 879, 882, 84 1124: 12 enjoins 'the laws', are abstract propositions. They relate units A, B C, expressions policy arising out specific difficulties, addressed attainment ends use remedies. Constitution require things fact treated they same.' 13 When, transcripts criminal trials longer practical accommodation must made. repeat what Metropolis Theater Co. 228 61, 69—70, 33 441, 443, 57 730: 14 'The problems government ones justify, if require, rough accommodations, illogical, be, unscientific. What best always discernible; wisdom choice disputed condemned.' 15 'rough accommodations' violate unless lines drawn 'hostile invidious.' Welch Henry, 305 134, 144, 59 121, 124, 87. make condemnation here. For, rest presumption protect 16 Affirmed. 17 HARLAN concurs result. 18 GOLDBERG, whom STEWART joins, dissenting. 19 respectfully dissent majority ignores me key disposition under misapprehension crucial point federal law, might resolved ultimate favor of, rather than against, 20 concluded operated prospectively, retroactively, sense invalidated 'existing financial barriers' Given view Griffin, unnecessary state consider concededly original indigency, deprived rights. Enabled erroneous interpretation put aside basic issue, held present applied delayed appeal, unconstitutional denial based solely transcript, anything related indigency. seems today approve least court, grounds relied below. 21 error belief principles denials occurred before decided. vindicating more restricted scope judgments. This, me, clear import Court's 1269.* 22 Of course, know how claim entitled either viewed retroactive effect controlling respect deprivation 1941. shown broad commendable latitude implementing enunciated presume predict proper reading Because passed perhaps ought anticipate resolve difficult questions necessary, vacate remand permit decide foreclosed believed Griffin's fully retroactive. analogous judgment sustaining directed statute 'as enforced situation presented.' Fiske Kansas, 274 380, 385, 47 655, 656, 71 1108. Terminiello 337 1, 4, 69 894, 93 1131. shows there. simply 'did failure 1935 right guaranteed fourteenth amendment, still right.' 173, N.E.2d 719, 720—721. thus mean merely 'that barriers imposed even restrictions invalidated.' Ibid. Eskridge, presented habeas corpus proceeding, first prosecute indigent; Eskridge.

Category: 1