Document: 351 U.S. 12 76 S.Ct. 585 100 L.Ed. 891 Judson GRIFFIN and James Crenshaw, Petitioners,v.The PEOPLE OF THE STATE ILLINOIS. No. 95. Argued Dec. 7, 1955. Decided April 23, 1956. Rehearing Denied May 28, See 958, 844. Mr. Charles A. Horsky, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. William C. Wines, Chicago, Ill., respondent. Justice BLACK announced the judgment of Court an opinion in which CHIEF JUSTICE, DOUGLAS, CLARK, join. 1 Illinois law provides that 'Writs error all criminal cases are writs right shall be issued course.'1 The question presented here is whether may, consistent with Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment, administer this statute so as to deny adequate appellate review poor while granting such others. 2 petitioners Griffin Crenshaw were tried together convicted armed robbery Criminal Cook County, Illinois, Immediately after their conviction they filed a motion trial court asking certified copy entire record, including stenographic transcript proceedings, furnished them without cost. They alleged 'poor persons no means paying necessary fees acquire Transcript Records needed prosecute appeal * *.' These allegations not denied. Under order get full direct errors by writ it defendant furnish bill exceptions or report proceedings at judge.2 As concedes, sometimes impossible prepare bills exceptions3 reports proceedings.4 Indigent defendants sentenced death provided free expense county where convicted.5 In other needing transcript, indigent not, must themselves buy it. contended before failure provide would violate Amendment. denied hearing. 3 then petition under Post-Conviction Hearing Act.6 Only questions arising Federal Constitution may raised Act. A companion state act Act some circumstances, obtain transcript.7 effect indigents constitutional but admissibility sufficiency evidence. proceeding there manifest nonconstitutional entitled have convictions set aside on only impediment was lack funds transcript. been Petitioners repeated charge refusal afford solely because poverty denial due process equal protection. This like first dismissed hearing any Supreme affirmed dismissal ground charges substantial federal questions—the kind proceedings. We granted certiorari. 349 937, 75 786, 99 1266. 4 Counsel concedes these errors.8 There contention dilatory efforts review, insufficient. therefore assume purposes decision committed merit reversal, could those too denies violates either Clause, states if does, entitles sole us decide, therefore, protection has violated.9 5 Providing justice rich, weak powerful alike age-old problem.10 People never ceased hope strive move closer goal. hope, least part, brought about 1215 royal concessions Magna Charta: 'To one will we sell, refuse, delay, justice. No man taken imprisoned, disseised, outlawed, exiled, anywise destroyed; nor go upon him send him, lawful his peers land.' pledges unquestionably steps toward fairer more nearly application tradition, our own guaranties both call procedures trials allow invidious discriminations between different groups persons. Both emphasize central aim judicial system—all people charged crime must, far concerned, 'stand equality bar every American court.' Chambers v. Florida, 309 227, 241, 60 472, 479, 84 716. also Yick Wo Hopkins, 118 356, 369, 6 1064, 1070, 30 220.11 Surely contend State Government constitutionally unable pay costs advance should plead guilty defend court.12 Such make promise fair worthless thing. Notice, heard, counsel circumstances meaningless promises poor. can discriminate account than religion, race, color. Plainly ability bears rational relationship defendant's guilt innocence used excuse deprive trial. Indeed, provision 1818 person 'ought freely, being obliged purchase it, completely denial, promptly conformably laws.'13 7 meaningful distinction rule effectively accorded who money enough advance. It true required courts all. See, e.g., McKane Durston, 153 684, 687 688, 14 913, 914—915, 38 867. But say does grant do way discriminates against poverty. Appellate now become integral part system finally adjudicating defendant. Consequently stages protect from discriminations. Cole Arkansas, 333 196, 201, 68 514, 517, 92 644; Dowd United States ex rel. Cook, 340 206, 208, 71 262, 263, 95 215; Cochran Kansas, 316 255, 257, 62 1068, 1069, 86 1453; Frank Mangum, 237 309, 327, 35 582, 587, 59 969. 8 All method convictions, recognizing importance correct adjudication innocence. Statistics show proportion reversed courts.14 Thus many lose life, liberty property unjust aside. Many recognized aid need it.15 few not. misfit country dedicated affording special privileges none administration its law.16 gets depends amount he has. Destitute afforded transcripts. 9 relief holding rights violated. view contrary decide State's brief suggests. Ill.Rev.Stat., 1955, c. 37, § 163f. Cf. U.S., pages 209—210, 263—264. hold, however, stenographer's case cannot find effective defendants. For example, bystanders' methods reporting cases.17 appears broad power promulgate rules procedure practice.18 confident corrective meet problem lays bare. 10 vacated cause remanded further action inconsistent foregoing paragraph. FRANKFURTER joins disposition case. 11 Vacated remanded. FRANKFURTER, concurring judgment. 13 admonition de Tocqueville confuse familiar vivid appeals cases. today established leads easy assumption fundamental life ingredient law. 'Due process' is, perhaps, frozen concept law—the confined history most absorptive social standards progressive society. neither unfolding content 'due particularized safeguards Bill Rights disregard procedural ways reflect national historic policy. significant (with roundabout negligible present purposes) hundred years; and, despite civilized modern England, (again pertinent) until 1907. Thus, settled require judgments. Nor laws classifications when rooted reason. 'The 'equal protection' clause aims disembodied equality. Amendment enjoins 'the laws', abstract propositions.' Tigner Texas, 310 141, 147, 879, 882, 1124. Since capital offenses sui generis, take irrevocability allowing Again, accused terms wisdom deemed proper.' 687—688, 914—915. exercised discriminating power. same time conditioned fixing within taken, delimiting scope shaping mechanism tribunal, forth. 15 fact altogether appropriate classification, based differences crimes punishment, lay down conditions deems appeals, sanctions differentiations relation policy authorizes imposition offend deepest presuppositions argument conclude wide discretion matters, punishable imprisonment year more, payment fee $500. course, done nothing crude that. said, effect, consider occurring basis determining otherwise.1 From follows decreed minutes reviewed Court. La Frana, Ill.2d 261, 266, 122 N.E.2d 583, 585—586. thereby shut off 16 willfully blind know past prejudicial called reversal defendants, number had cost invoke whatever truth maxim minimis. 17 Law addresses itself actualities. face actuality suggest affords person, financially competent opportunity appeal, responsible disparity material circumstances. Of course equalize economic conditions. able retention expensive, reach man's purse. Those contingencies hardly power, let alone duty, cushion. wise just susceptible court, force exactions draw line precludes persons, forsooth erroneously convicted, securing merely disabling bringing notice tribunal upset practical foreclosed. 18 To sanction ruthless consequence, inevitably resulting hurdle erected State, justify latter-day Anatole France add item ironic comments 'majestic equality' law, majestic equality, forbids rich well sleep bridges, beg streets, steal bread.' John Cournos, Modern Plutarch, p. 27. 19 produce squalid discrimination. If general exercise opportunity. keep word ear illegally break hope. avoid minimize abuse waste, appropriately hedge prove wrong. When gives leave correction indigent, frivolous subsidized public moneys needlessly spent. growing experience reforms sensible, modes still devised, drawn end bolt door support wasteful process. 20 conviction, having means, advised, available complain tell what open chosen. prescribe area discretion. 21 allegedly fatal defects potentially reversible precluded securing. Attorney General court's apparently assumed Considering nature issue thus appearing themselves, savor disrespect implication unqualified rejection claims situation. Diaz Gonzalez, 261 102, 105—106, 43 286, 287, 67 550. again reaches Court, existing resources according satisfaction laws. 22 mindful undoubtedly convicts confinement prisons, numbers unknown unappealed sentences imposed years ago, justification opinion, unless properly qualified, illegal detention Constitution. answer claim duly asserted—as timely petitioners—cannot asserted now. easy. Candor compels acknowledgement rendered new ruling. unreasonable incarcerated, transcripts courts, urge justified assuming restriction presumably valid suffered consequences. Therefore claimed conscious waiver negatived. 23 ought rely casuistic arguments denying claims, deem imprisoned formal, dilemma. choice limited ruling necessarily retrospective, requirements laws, perceived, require. sound reasons, generally speaks prospectively. More instance, Ohio, confronted unlike us, found difficulty doing concluded legislative divorces unconstitutional. Bingham Miller, Ohio 445. arriving principle, impotent define limits. Adjudication mechanical compel 'either/or' determinations. 24 indulge fiction always did avail waived rights. much conducive law's self-respect recognize candidly considerations give prospective pronouncement That consonant spirit reason dominate luminously expounded Cardozo, shortly came wrote Address Chief Judge 55 Report New York Bar Ass'n, 294 et seq., Great Northern R. Co. Sunburst Oil & Refining Co., 287 358, 363 366, 53 145, 148—149, 77 360. molding adjudication, peculiarly applicable hand. day delimited indicated. 25 BURTON MINTON, whom REED HARLAN join, dissenting. 26 While disagree desirability supplying testimony this, agree each consequence that, regardless legislation practice contrary, hold invalid wherever litigant requested provided. thing Congress courts. quite another prescribed 27 local interpreted permitting several follow practice. widely differing locally approved States. Whether approving particular treated largely matters reserved range permissible sense. 28 majority admit, all, difference among point here. 29 whether, first, arbitrary legislature make, offense lesser offense, seems whole teaches distinctions looked violating Very often seek penalty. practicing lawyers know, defended offenses, goal possible something pretty final sentence. actual recognizes noncapital cases, see why extend benefit offenses. universal considerations. Examples readily occur. larger peremptory challenges jurors Most permit changes venue Some verdict less convict On side coin, limitations think made reasonable one. 31 Secondly, certainly although bound economically desirable policy, good Persons stand varying degrees advantage. better investigations bail, cannot. Why fix bail sum can't it? 32 requires financial 33 BLACK'S future. holds future failed sought, petitioner here, dependent evidence interference result, believe field option. 34 pass exception, prepared judges, requiring notes transcribed us. would. HARLAN, 36 Much I prefer felony myself join Court's equivalent exercising appeal. decided justifies adding MINTON written my grounds dissenting reasons opinions unsatisfying. 37 1. Inadequacy Record.—I decline tendered record 'clean-cut,' 'concrete,' 'unclouded' form usually demanded issues. Rescue Army Municipal Los Angeles, 331 549, 584, 1409, 1427, 91 1666. might precise petitioners' passing contains definite allegation 'petitioners convictions.' 'needed' (a) prerequisite errors,1 (b) factual matter short 39 legally necessary, erroneous cited establish absence exceptions, essential preparation bill.2 unbroken establishes consist simply narrative sources—for memory judge, counsel, defendant, bystanders—and judge certify accurate out corrections made.3 Viewed light bare be: Is shown added advantage use exceptions? pause question. 40 takes alternative preparing inadequate finds prevent utilizing methods. even accepting reading pleadings, knowing underlying conclusory 'need.' Petitioners' indigence, 'fact' alleged, preclude told prevented so. disclose incarcerated during period filed, represented left speculate them. Who knew facts narrower today, perhaps salutary 'of avoiding decisions issues clarity, precision certainty', supra, page 576, 1423, refuse 41 According tabulation, non-capital crimes. sweeping touch States4 create host problems affecting status multitude convicts. impact obscure especially ready hand clarified sought presented. 42 However, since refrain deciding urged necessity becomes manifest, note disagreement Inasmuch not—and be—based peculiar case, 'needs' entitled, producing need, assure review? 2. Protection.—In finding painted brush. said 'rich' 'poor' appeals. statement commands support, sheds character confronting unnecessary working system. Trial below; used, surely appellant bear cost; foreclosed feasible record. appealing. 1453. fail alleviate consequences exist wholly apart action. 44 Clause imposes affirmative duty lift handicaps flowing produces anomalous result treat equally instance others for. Granting classification reasonable, regarded accurately real discriminated discriminate. 45 understand dispute reasonableness requirement preparation, paid appealing party. operation requirements, 'poor.' burden attendant privilege differentiation though discrimination 'indigents' name exclusion university protection, tuition fees. And imposing condition another. constitutes discriminatory others, similar misdemeanor or, matter, civil cases? 46 absolute, 'reasonable.' offends seriousness Hence 'reasonable' 'classification' relieve burden. typical legal disabilities, rather remove natural disabilities. submit unarticulated conclusion 'fundamental fairness' considers justice, imprison serious traditional language process, Betts Brady, 455, 462, 1252, 1256, 1595, import substance into dispose rise all-too-easy ignore solve labeling 'discrimination.' 47 3. Process.—Has violation Clause? review. Nevertheless, forefront States, early 1827.5 1887, official reporters, relieving hiring reporters transcript.6 1927, 'all expenses' incident error, counties.7 1953, authorized presentation claims.8 steadily expanded recent strides towards alleviating disadvantages indigents. Can unconstitutional steady progress increasing resulted decline? 48 mean restraints establishing allowed. mean, 'right' sense trial.9 Rather capricious reasons. Nothing kind, 49 agreed objection provisions challenge directed basic step providing forma pauperis procedure. else Illinois' reluctance expend perfecting indigents, arbitrary. economy unenlightened, capricious. evidenced attention contemporaneously justifying confines undertaking holds. 50 argued 'arbitrary,' 'unfair' non-arbitrary withhold ever characterized. event, weigh competing values favor function distribute uses. assuring 'implicit ordered liberty,' Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 325, 58 149, 152, 82 288, 'denial fairness, shocking justice,' supra (316 1256). equivalence traditionally fairness,' extending recently gained widespread acceptance. 1944 became transcripts,10 date approximately one-third step. With regard intervene am bring 'shocking justice.' 51 elements hitherto adopt reform Whatever federalism However strong one's inclination hasten beyond province procedures. 38, 769.1. 110, 259.70A (Supreme Rule 70A), 101.65 65). prosecuted 'mandatory record' kept clerk, consisting indictment, arraignment, plea, obtained instances mandatory admission Loftus, 400 Ill. 432, 81 495. Cullen Stevens, 389 35, 456; Study U. Chi.L.Rev. 107, 125. 'A complete consists convening termination includes motions rulings instructions come clerk's record.' Iasello McKinlay, 409 120, 124—125, 98 728, 730. oral stated: 'With respect so-called someone's condensed that's everybody understands nobody heard actually years. you went back days today. suggested verbatim 'There isn't it.' Yetter, 386 594, 54 532; Johns, 388 212, 57 895; Jennings 342 104, 109—110, 72 123, 126, 96 119, remand, 411 21, 25, 27, 102 824, 825—827; Joyce, 225, 230, 115 264—265; 585—586; 728; O'Connell, 591, 104 825. 769a. §§ 826—832. section 'In (the Act) presiding determined post-conviction sufficient answer, reporter transcribe, introduced instructed 4, cited. argues required. briefs sides stated 'Ye unrighteousness judgment: thou shalt poor, honour mighty: righteousness thy neighbor.' Leviticus, 19, 15. Dissenting argue upheld applies alike. nondiscriminatory grossly operation. struck 'grandfather clause' Oklahoma Negroes nondiscriminatory. Guinn 238 347, 926, 1340. Lane Wilson, 307 268, 872, 83 1281. discussion Hovey Elliott, 167 409, 841, 215. Ill.Constitution 1818, Art. VIII, 12. Substantially carried over Constitution, II, 19. Note, Reversals Cases, Harv.L.Rev. 566. Ariz.Code Ann., 1939, 44—2525; Ark.Stat., 1947, 22—357; Page's Rev.Code 1954, 2301.24; S.C.Code. 1952, 15—1903; McKinney's N.Y.Laws, Crim.Code, 1945 (Supp.1955), 456. A.L.R. 321. Appeals 1913 spoke tradition country's dedication declared respecter said: 'We want understand, poorest unpopular depend sale Oklahoma, deprived stenographer testimony.' Jeffries Okl.Cr. 573, 132 P. 823, 824. Weatherford 1840, Scam. 253, 253; Maher Williams, 1878, 87; Hall Holdom, 1901, 193 61 N.E. 1014; Miller 1942, 317 192, 63 187, 87 179; Ann.Cas. 737. 2; 65); Callopy, 358 11, 192 634. viz., *. include instructions, directly prayed allowed, court. Therefore, common-law considered argument, affidavit, otherwise, supply expand fall motions, evidence, like, reached remedy error. *' 433-434, 495, 497. pleadings manner. described 'sole contention' 'unable were, Court.' suggests construed produced result. meant, construction, basis, binding constitute premised existence preventing pursuing E.g., 495; Scam, Munson Gary, 1883, 105 264; 162 East Street Hotel Corp. Lindheimer, 1938, 368 294, 970; Weber Sneeringer, 1928, 247 Ill.App. 294; Merkle Kegerreis, 350 103, 112 175; North Restaurant Chetlain, 1906, 219 248, 364; Mayville French, 1910, 246 434, 919; Simus Donoghue, 1941, 377 122, 371. reaffirmed three months 264—265, Holdom Lindheimer approval proposition 'constructed 'bystander's' exceptions.' 'as matter' indigence incarceration failing 'waive' given assert collateral proceeding. Accord: 586. detract affirmation errors. clear recognition 'practicalities' applying strict doctrine remedial obtaining sufficiently 'available' satisfy supposed requirements. case—of informed here—and evaluation purposes. have, expressly discretionary Mass.Ann.Laws, 278, 33A, amended Acts 352 ('by court'); N.D.Rev.Code, 1943, 27—0606 (when 'there therefor'); Ore.Rev.Stat., 21.470 (if 'justice promoted'); S.D.Code, 34.3903 'essential defendant'); Wash.Rev.Code, 1951, 2.32.240 promoted'). Rhode Island interpretation authorizing reimbursement expenditures appointed counsel. Hudson, 1935, R.I. 179 130, 135, 313 ('sound great circumspection cause'). addition, refers letter Connecticut Errors Ill.Rev.L.1827, 186, 187; Ill.Laws 159; 163b. 400, 1/2; 859; makes dubious validity analogy oneself Stat. 5, U.S.C. 753(f), 1915(a), U.S.C.A. 1915(a). prior practice, see, Estabrook King, Cir., 119 F.2d 607, 610; Fair, D.C.N.D.Cal., 235 F. 1015.

Category: 1