Document: 404 U.S. 226 92 S.Ct. 431 30 L.Ed.2d 400 Charles W. BRITT, Jr., Petitioner,v.State of NORTH CAROLINA. No. 70—5041. Argued Oct. 14, 1971. Decided Dec. 13, Syllabus Petitioner was convicted murder a month after his previous trial had ended with hung jury. Both trials took place in small town before the same judge and counsel court reporter, who (as conceded) well known to defense other local lawyers would have read back notes second he been asked do so. Between two petitioner, alleging indigency, filed motion for free transcript, which denied. The appellate affirmed conviction, holding that an adequate alternative transcript available. Held: In narrow circumstances this case, not needed petitioner's defense. Pp. 227—230. 8 N.C.App. 262, 174 S.E.2d 69, affirmed. Robert G. Bowers, New Bern, N.C., petitioner. Christine Y. Denson, Raleigh, respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL, delivered opinion Court. 1 Petitioner's three-day mistrial when jury reported hopeless deadlock. A retrial scheduled following month. interim, petitioner indigent, asking first trial. denied motion, North Carolina Court Appeals affirmed, stating record case did reveal sufficient need transcript. 69 (1970). Supreme certiorari. We granted certiorari determine whether rule Griffin v. Illinois, 351 12, 76 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956), applies context. 401 973, 91 1204, 28 322 (1971). conclude it does, but no violation has shown, therefore we affirm. 2 Illinois its progeny establish principle State must, as matter equal protection, provide indigent prisoners basic tools or appeal, those are available price prisoners. While outer limits clear, there can be doubt must defendant prior proceedings is effective appeal.1 question here state properly determined requested 3 cases involving defendant's claim right identified factors relevant determination need: (1) value connection appeal sought, (2) availability devices fulfill functions transcript.2 DOUGLAS suggests courts refused order both because failed make particularized showing need, were him. 4 agree dissenters serious doubts about decision below if rested on failure specify how might useful Our consistently recognized proceedings, without requiring tailored facts particular case.3 As makes even absence specific allegations ordinarily assumed valuable at least ways: discovery device preparation trial, tool itself impeachment prosecution witnesses. 5 But use language 'particularized need.' It instead factor is, alternatives judge, only apart. these circumstances, suggested memory should furnished substitute addition, pointed fact could called reporter testimony given mistrial, event inconsistent offered 6 repeatedly rejected suggestion render assistance, perfect keep exhaustive trial.4 Moreover, suffice limited access during course That approach aptly 'too little too late' United States ex rel. Wilson McMann, 408 F.2d 896, 897 (CA2 1969). At oral argument however, emerged obtained from far more assistance than ordinary defendant, Wilson. where, according counsel, good friend all reporting appears any time advance simply made informal request.5 7 claims does not, under our cases, bear burden proving inadequate such may by conjured up hindsight. conceded substantially equivalent transcript.6 Accordingly, cannot error rejecting claim. For reasons judgment 9 Affirmed. 10 BLACKMUN concurs result, dismiss petition having improvidently granted. 11 whom BRENNAN concurs, dissenting. 12 After State's November 1969, Britt retried, convicted, sentenced years' imprisonment. During interim between trials, indigency him mistrial. despite Britt's contention affluent purchase denial request offend 891, (1956). On likewise unconvinced protection court's refusal (a) (b) represented lawyer (c) suspected inconsistencies evidence developed counsel's putting earlier Because I am persuaded reverse Appeals. 13 * supra, U.S., 19, S.Ct., 591, established now familiar '(t)here justice where kind man gets depends amount money has.' involved provision direct underlying achieved broader usage. witnessed steady growth applications cases,1 docketing fees,2 counsel.3 14 Of applications, Roberts LaVallee, 389 40, 88 194, 19 41 (1967), most analogous instant circumstances. Roberts, preliminary hearing key witness testified. here, special made, times, testimony. Id., 43, 196. Nonetheless, over dissent Harlan prejudice shown id., 44, 197, held withholding invalid interposition financial consideration prisoner sue liberty. 42, 15 Here whereas ways either used perceive differences. sets seem defendants interested better positions challenge discrepancies government witnesses' stories.4 purposes recording former virtual dry run entire prosecution's information normally clothed top secrecy prevailing restrictive rules against criminal discovery. 16 Perhaps considerations Second Circuit squarely absolute transcripts prosecutions ending juries. 896 And, prosecutions. considered controlling. 17 Appeals, Griffin-Roberts-Wilson sought refuge pre-Roberts authority Nickens States, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 338, 323 808 (1963), emphasized, below, articulate continuity reporter.5 thought arguments found irrelevant constitutional Griffin-Roberts-Wilson. II 18 primary rationale support Presumably flows legitimate interest avoiding needless fiscal outlays. related contexts notion impoverished accused federal unable very subtleties buried document seeks. example, Hardy 375 277, 84 424, 331 (1964), required appeals appellants complete purpose determining their present non-frivolous questions review entitle them forma pauperis relief pursuant U.S.C. § 1915. then-prevailing view full provided able demonstrate parts thereof. concurring four Justices concerning advocacy applicable formulating strategy: 'As advocate will attest, fundamental profession through trained fingers leaf eyes roam search error, lead basis upon urge change hitherto accepted law. 20 '* No responsible retained represents rely exclusively (even supplemented notes) composing list possible errors delimit appeal.' 288, (Goldberg, J., concurring). 21 Similarly, while studying minutes, precise words trigger mental processes resulting strategies otherwise overlooked. Such spontaneity hardly forecast articulated terms need. 22 unnecessary, speculate often helpful actually because, general matter, compelling interests routinely served providing paupers transcripts, nature benefits mentioned earlier, one (who realize counterpart, prosecutor, employ similar supplied expense own preparation). anticipating statements being prepared immediately contradictions. See Wilson, 897. wealthier tend strength recurring interests, appear worth documents regardless cost reproducing minutes distributed.6 23 When viewed context lack procedures, importance becomes clearer. Many commentators criticized persistent common-law prohibition defendants, characterizing systems 'sporting theories justice' complaining vast advantage enjoyed marshaling evidence.7 some system moved liberalize defendants' privileges,8 exceptions still Carolina.9 analogue enacted complement modern comprehensive civil discovery.10 Instead, judiciary continued apply common law's flat ban recently 1964 reaffirmed policy. Goldberg, 261 N.C. 181, 134 S.E. 2d 334 Bureau Investigation permit inspect certain files. explaining ancient approved Chief Vanderbilt's well-known leading Tune, N.J. 203, 98 A.2d 881 (1953): 24 "In long experience taught honest factfinding, contrary perjury suppression evidence. Thus aware whole procure perjured set false Another result informed names witnesses take steps bribe frighten into giving absenting themselves so they unavailable testify. many witnesses, know knowledge reluctant come forward investigation crime. All dangers inherent much stake, life, proceedings. presence today extensive efforts eradicate constitutes threat administration thus welfare country whole. To unqualified disclosure hands go beyond what cases; defeat ends justice." 192, 341.11 25 Carolina's presentation anti-discovery policy evidenced reluctance enact code procedures also occasional one-sided legislation matters. prosecutor files pertain inquiries, procured cause. N.C.Gen.Stat. 114—15 (1966). Even bill particulars clarify indictment require divulge physical documentary evidence.12 15—143 (1965); Spence, 271 23, 32, 155 802, 809 (1967).13 26 Thus, surprising investigative preparatory resources puny contrast employed accusers. police enlist talent trace analyze fingerprint Investigators study situs murder. convenience officers interrogate incarcerated eventually eliciting incriminating statement. unlike lawyer, readjust strategy. 27 This sensitive persuasive liberal discovery.14 extent permits accused, duty forbid distribution fruits formulas based wealth, which, like race, suspect classification. supra; Harper Virginia Board Elections, 383 663, 86 1079, 169, (1966); Shapiro Thompson, 394 618, 89 1322, 600, (1969). permitting obviously important exception prohibition. contains addresses stories oath theory government's case. dossier opposing liberalized equivalent. endures, condition effectively deprive poor tool. III 29 lower whatever uses generally alternatively accomplished calling prosecution. U.S.App.D.C., 341, F.2d, 811. However satisfactorily facilitate clear procedure preparing verify hostile contradictions discredited commentators, including Professor Keeton: 31 'If you caught contradiction, clearly exact previously brought jury's attention. effect extend bearing contradiction subject 'broken down' admissions disbelieves Calling examination, rarely practicable method confronting contradiction. judges decline practice great delay usually involved, searching effort find part refer. practice, wisdom questionable. grow impatient, afforded considerable period think explanation excuse.' R. Keeton, Trial Tactics Methods 103 (1954). (Emphasis added.) 32 Indeed hazards painfully Wilson's attorney erroneously believed remembered statement testified quizzed remark ever it. decided until witness. 'considerable perhaps inconvenience jurors' learned mistaken issue existed. 898. 33 satisfied majority reasonable hold line laws.15 34 below. Williams Oklahoma City, 395 458, 1818, 440 (1969); Gardner California, 393 367, 580, 601 (1967); Long District Iowa, 385 87 362, 290 Draper Washington, 372 487, 83 774, 899 (1963); Eskridge Washington Bd. Prison Terms Paroles, 357 214, 78 1061, 1269 (1958); 495—496, 778—779, cited n. 1, supra. Griffin, concession State, 13—14, 16, 588, 589. subsequent taken judicial notice variety see Eskridge, 215, 1062; Gardner, 369—370, 582—583. Most unnecessary discuss question, notwithstanding argued put, bar claiming 1062. memory, 582—583, Williams, 459, 1819. Indeed, consider ground easily furnished. 194—195, 364. Whether similarly record. Tr. Oral Arg. 12. Cf. Avery Alabama, 308 444, 450—452, 60 321, 324—325, 377 (1940) (Black, J.). Wade 396 282, 90 501, 470 (1970), made. appeared borrow light done proceeding. remanded exploration possibility. (1970); Board, Ross Schneckloth, 575, 1387, 1547 People Montgomery, N.Y.2d 993, 278 N.Y.S.2d 226, 224 N.E.2d 730 An indigent's grand protected Criminal Act 1964, defendant—whether rich poor—has thereto. 3006A(e) (1). Seventh Circuits rights minutes. Youngblood, 379 365 1967); Amabile, 47, 53 (CA7 1968). And circuits individual discoverable recent amendments Jencks Act. 3500(e) (3). Boddie Connecticut, 371, 780, 113 (1971); Smith Bennett, 708, 81 895, 39 (1961); Burns Ohio, 360 252, 79 1164, 1209 (1959). Anders 386 738, 1396, 493 Swenson Bosler, 258, 996, Douglas 353, 814, 811 Gideon Wainwright, 335, 792, 799 (1963). These explain why useful. discussion suggest pretrial useful, although per curiam intimated desired check witness, 41, 195; nor Circuit's issue, 373 49 1967). development cases. gave issues plenary consideration. Judge Wright concurred majority's obtain raised. 345, 815. Also Forsberg 242 (CA9 1965), opinion, relied solely denying indigent. 248. Keeton large amounts standard 'a standing 'daily copy' proceedings.' 104 wealthy clients haled rather ones, attorneys orders. excessive disparity respective resources, summarized follows commentator: '(T)he law enforcement agency scene crime shortly commission. scene, fresher recollections. They authorized confiscate removable investigatory agencies analysis 'The option hiring private investigator. However, investigator probably get occurrence removed difficulty viewing property. Witnesses less accessible; recollections precise. choose cooperate if, afford pending helpless cope uncooperative numerous means compel First, possibility coroner's inquest hearing. prefers present, jurisdictions allow excluded. subpoenaed testify, again cannot, usually, discover 'Many states give intended alibi insanity defenses. burden, bringing charge, contrast, lessened. Mere recitation statute pleading charge. Amendments liberally allowed; duplicity variances longer defects. Liberal offense.' Norton, Discovery Process, 61 J.Crim.L.C. & P.S. 11, 13—14 Handzel, Law: Pre-Trial Discovery—The Right Indigent's Counsel Inspect Police Reports, St. Louis U.L.J. 310 Moore, Discovery, Hastings L.J. 865 (1968); Statute Liberalize Harv.J.Legis. 105 (1967). Comment, Disclosure Cases: Where Are Headed?, Duquesne U.L.Rev. Golden Palik, Bibliography: Tulsa 207 Symposium: Federal Cases, F.R.D. 47 Brennan, Prosecution: Sporting Event Quest Truth?, 1963 Wash. U.L.Q. 279. Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 15—17. Note, Procedures Under York's Procedure Law, 38 Brooklyn L.Rev. 164 Accused Courts Inspection Evidence Possession Prosecution, A.L.R.3d Statutory 8—74 (1969) (depositions attend trial); 15—155.4 (Supp.1969). latter 1967 cause discovery, intends prevent favorable. decisions considering addition Macon, 276 466, 173 286 affirming 245, 170 144 (1969), upholding accused's inspection specified officer interrogation. c. 1A celebrated opinions (1953), contain vigorous (now Justice) Brennan expressed regret disregard successful implementation another situation Overman, 269 453, 153 44 rapist's details presented acquittal kidnaping charge arising out transaction. Look System Prepared Governor's Committee Law Order, Task Force Arrest Apprehension, A. Pye, Chmn. (1970): 'Very new (1967) (G.S. 15—155) paucity dealing allows unclear feel filing Indications vitality.' 14—15. continues: 'There strong solicitors (consciously unconsciously) withhold favorable *.' 16. Hamilton, 264 141 506 (1965) (access reports denied); 468, S.E.2d, 57; Goldman 316 129, 62 1322 (1942), approval 191, memoranda refresh memories. restatement Goldberg court, 340 C.J.S. §§ 995(1) (2). Pyle Kansas, 317 213, 63 177, 214 (1942); 353 657, 668, 77 1007, 1013, 1103 (1957); Brady Maryland, 83, 1194, 215 Dennis 384 855, 873, 1840, 1851, 973 (1966), reasoning that: 'In adversary guilt innocence, justifiable exclusive storehouse fact.' disagree laws. majority, distinguishes routine tried acquainted reporter. Counsel, Court, ought prevailed assist making believe kinds fortuities determinative guarantees, especially difficult afterwards alleged relationships.

Category: 1