Document: 369 U.S. 438 82 S.Ct. 917 8 L.Ed.2d 21 Mark COPPEDGE, Jr., Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 157. Argued Dec. 12, 1961. April 30, 1962. Decided [Syllabus from pages 438-440 intentionally omitted] Bennett Boskey, Washington, D.C., for the petitioner. Carl W. Belcher, respondent. Mr. Chief Justice WARREN delivered opinion of Court. 1 Tried and convicted in a Federal District Court an offense against United States, petitioner applied leave to appeal his conviction Appeals forma pauperis. His application was denied. The case presents this question: What standard is be by lower federal courts passing upon such applications? articulation usable has been source considerable recent litigation.1 And, while we recognize that no single word or group words can provide precise formula will dispose every case, think it appropriate indicate somewhat greater detail than past, approach must take toward indigent's direct criminal 2 Statutory provision litigation pauperis made 28 U.S.C. § 1915, U.S.C.A. authorizing '(a)ny court States' allow indigent persons prosecute, defend suits without prepayment costs. Before discussing our understanding proper manner which exercise its authority pauperis, believe would helpful briefly law applicable appeals generally. provisions 1915 understood cases only when read together with other Judicial Code Rules governing appeals. 3 Present Court's judgment what is, effect, matter right.2 That defendant right have reviewed Appeals, need not petition discretion him bring before court. requirements meet perfecting are those expressed as time limitations within various procedural steps completed. First, timely notice filed confer jurisdiction over case.3 Subsequently, designations transcript, record on briefs forum.4 4 generally experience material difficulty filing appeal.5 But thereafter he immediately faced fees docketing cost preparing record, including stenographic transcript at least portions trial proceedings.6 If unable either both these expenses, perfect applying application, convicted,7 conform 1915(a), 1915(a) include, affidavit form, defendant's representations poverty, statement belief entitled redress. sole statutory language guided provides '(a)n may taken if certifies writing good faith.' 1915(a). 5 meaning should placed 'good faith' statute speaks? In context appeal, do require determine whether would-be appellant seeks further review subjective faith, i.e., faith point view.8 Such construction deprive legislation sensible meaning, there probably being who sincerely wish conviction. Further, might suggest who, conscience, could insist their innocence, convictions payment We interpretation required reason nor consistent sound administration justice courts. hold, instead, judged objective standard. consider type demonstrated appellate any issue frivolous. so doing, note attempted reasons genuinely characterized litigant's 'bad faith,' express exists 1915(d), 1915(d) dismissal cause frivolous.9 6 finds therefore denies seek identical relief Appeals.10 considering addressed it, usually pro se pleading layman certificate district judge applicant lacks seeking review. conclusive, although course, weight.11 However, recognized materials stage proceedings inadequate application. Nevertheless, face papers filed, apparent present issues clearly frivolous, then grant appoint counsel represent proceed consideration merits same considers paid If, hand, claims sought raised substance cannot adequately ascertained assistance sufficient completeness enable attempt make showing lack error allowed.12 aid, court's allowed. 7 holding impelled considerations beyond corners duty assure greatest degree possible, framework created Congress, equal treatment litigant bar.13 view comparable one us here '(u)nless (by pauperis) frivolous dismissed nonindigent litigant, Fed.Rules Crim.Proc. 39(a), 18 U.S.C.A., request allowed.' Ellis v. 356 674, 675, 78 974, 975, 1060. 9 equating test allowing pauper's dismissing cases, equality all litigants. equation intended place burdens proof persuasion party Government. Since statutes rules right, burden abused through prosecution should, times, making suggestion frivolity. It show merit, sense bound, even likely, prevail ultimately. He heard, makes rational argument facts. Government, opposing lacking indeed, merit dismiss motion had docketed able afford expense complying requirements.14 were practice screen docket frivolity, hearing oral argument, reviewing full briefs, paupers could, bound rules. But, defer rulings motions until benefit adequate hold less accord poor person rights. 10 Two additional factors relevance disposition These foundation Rule 39(d) Criminal Procedure, specifying preference shall given Courts cases. This Rule, first, acknowledges importance sovereign, accused society prosecution. When acts members life, liberty property, takes most awesome steps. No general respect for, adherence to, whole well expected judicial recognition paramount prompt, eminently fair sober procedures. methods employ enforcement aptly called measures quality civilization judged.15 Second, accorded recognizes speedy Delay final conviction, review, unquestionably erodes efficacy enforcement. 11 Both particularly pertinent Statistics compiled below illustrate undeniable fact many meritorious come applications docket, priori justification found them, class, more costs paid.16 Even-handed demands others courts' dockets. Particularly since litigants may, court, suffered disadvantages defense inherent impecunious condition, searching inappropriate. Indigents' used convenient valve reducing pressures work pursuing litigation, powerless otherwise discourage it. exists, persuaded concentrated narrow, yet vital, area duty. 12 Similarly, statistics demonstrate inevitable delay surrounds procedure give piecemeal attention series indigents adjudication reached. Delays described years between decision unhappy result separate appointment counsel, preparation and, ultimately, illustrates point. Petitioner indicted June 16, 1958, offenses alleged committed early December 1957. first tried 1958. Leave granted Court, 23, 1959, reversed remanded new trial. 106 U.S.App.D.C. 275, 272 F.2d 504. October appointed second Pre-trial argued 1959 January 1960, petitioner's took week March 1960. sentenced 11, On 22, denied An directed 15, 20, petitioner, 30-page memorandum support appeal. following day, Government answered stating believed order government ruling objected grounds sufficiently indicated non-frivolous was, therefore, unwarranted. July 1, ordered States. became available August Government's opposition pursuant extension September 2, misconceiving understand claimed points 'not substantial' warrant pauperis; did 'frivolous.' reply 8. November 5, dissenting, certiorari 19, 366 959, 81 1926, 1252. heard 1961, remanding reconsideration intermediary step, still far end course original now four after commission two date reviewed.17 13 light delay, surprising asks reach immediately. alone, unfortunate though bypass orderly processes Contrary assertion already received amounts plenary trial, benefits presenting charged supervision court.18 memoranda prepared be, they rightly considered as, appeallate briefs. serve difficult patently briefing argument. saying, not, ultimately affirmed reversed. whole, justify summary below. 14 numerous asserted indictment procured use perjured testimony grand jury. decided charge, proven, reversal based returned jury perjury. related See, e.g., Costello 350 359, 76 406, 100 L.Ed. 397 (hearsay evidence jury); Lawn 355 339, 311, 321 (illegally seized Beck 541, 955, 98 (alleged inflammatory publicity surrounding state deliberations). 15 also prove charge prejured presented because refusal permit examine jury's proceedings. Again, particular access normally secret minutes held properly denied, volumes States Reports Reporter include number opinions extent secrey attached explored.19 16 A arguable mentioned alone warranted allowance They reasonable withstand claim frivolity manifest consideration, order. vacated, inconsistent opinion. 17 ordered. Judgment vacated directions. 19 FRANKFURTER part case. 20 WHITE STEWART, whom BRENNAN agrees, concurring. 22 joining I add few words. rule simple one. allowed 'unless litigant.' difficulties encountered practical largely, think, own making. 23 stem failure over-all scheme Our right. diluting imposing stringent merit. Rather, device advance screening which, paid, preliminary absence built-in pecuniary brake There difference unpaid both, suggestion. 24 said certification great weight. Johnson 352 565, 566, 77 550, 551, 593. ultimate responsibility deciding itself independent assessment judge's appraisal conduct Anything impose disability defendants contemplated permits. safeguard overindulgence free impinge fundamental rich poor, 25 chooses utilize permitted kind evident frequently arise. bare seldom furnishes evaluating weight involved. For reason, opportunity supra; Farley 354 521, 1371, 1529. proceedings, however, shown tendency lose sight point—whether paid. Obviously arguments concerning disengage dealing issues. Understandably commendably, often exert effort substantial nature clients' claims—an exertion energy draws similar counsel. product forces bear close superficial resemblance itself. 26 tantamount merits, tend decide appraising entire terms reversible appears. By token, here, argues equivalent affirmance merits. See Lurk 712, 1229, 845. 27 conversion into truncated substitute distorts purpose accepted, raise serious questions due process. logically involved point, but Appellate written submitted. mode memoranda, internal machinery, markedly differ process employed actually interim proceeding deemed constitute crime entitled. addition danger determination itself, compelling parties go 1915. imposition dissipation skirmishing. Moreover, occasioned entended offensive ideal justice. 29 primary containing limited bounds rests choose system While deny latitude circuits autonomously devise procedures local conditions needs, achieved keeping mind very established. 30 suggests each task expeditiously responsibly performed simply granting appointing brief argue file appellee always do. appeared disposed affirmance, secure knowledge fully canvassed. procedure, seems me, save obviate shows, complicated two-step too likely produce. 31 CLARK, HARLAN joins, dissenting. I. 32 Congress provided 'if With today purposes repeals placing sustain rather overturn position sub silentio previous 523, 1372, 1529 (1957), where 'petitioner afforded errors * *.' Accord, 593 (1957).1 goes long line 'great weight'—a notes fails recognize. finding weight,' controlling 'some *,' Wells 318 257, 259, 63 582, 584, 87 746 (1943), how upholding it' say files submit analogous. treat nonpaid like ignore 33 does clear bases assumption professes act 'within Congress'; intimates 'impelled 1915,' touchstone principle arising Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment. believe, disparity remain subject peril. set up special subjects examination necessary. left initiative distinction rise discrimination constitutional proportions. As pointed out Hirabayashi 320 81, 100, 1375, 1385, 1774 '(t)he Fifth Amendment contains protection clause restrains discriminatory denial hit seen, providing urgent.' see impediment asking ride just joyrider. Although affords pay appeals, surely protect ones (which incidentally numbers overwhelmingly predominate) 'subsidized public moneys needlessly spent.' Griffin Illinois, 351 24, 585, 593, 891 (1956) (concurring opinion). II. 34 holds shows action basis complete extensive deference preliminary, find them substantially bulk Upon presentation satisfied proper. true permitted. having conclusion put stop proceeding. nonpaid. Johnson, 327 106, 66 464, 90 562 (1946). adjudicate manner, affirming Inasmuch arisen confines summarily under dispositions. 35 concluded erred run length. reaching has, my view, misplaced assuming arguendo contentions agree fruitless taken. 36 To sure, some analogous delimits nonpaid, seem incorrectable harmless. Concededly, late consistently mistakenly Experience tack unsatisfactory, perhaps re-evaluate approach. 37 turn about never remand am suggesting congressional mandate analyze, inter alia, thoroughness below, character raised, beneficiality strength weakness made. Applying criteria convinced compel wasteful formalities detriment off another day Court.2 speaks delays, appears contributed evil eliminate. follow teaching Pollard 354, 481, 393 Holiday Johnston, 313 342, 61 1015, 85 1392 (1941), now. dissent. During past five Terms necessary vacate erroneous 593; 1529; Delbridge 906, 1297, 1425; Edwards 36, 124, 72; 1060; Hill 704, 1139, 1145; Cash 357 219, 1365, 1361; Hansford 578, 1394, 1548; Kitchens 358 42, 79 70, 45; Smith 281, 322, 299; 361 13, 80 92, 52; 38, 141, 112; McAbee 537, 615, 539; Page 359 116, 730, 674; Willis 362 216, 667, 667. Cf. Simcox Madigan, 765, 1669, 854; Ragan Cox, 437, 948. §§ 1291, 1294, 1294; 37(a), Carroll 394, 400—401, 1332, 1336—1337, 1442. 37(a); Robinson, 220, 282, 259. 39(c) (record 40 days appeal); Columbia Circuit 33(b) (application copies incarcerated), 33(c) (appellant's designation appeal), 18(a) jurisdictional prerequisite liberal incarcerated defendants, equivalents notices preserve Appeals. Lemke 346 325, 74 (notice prior judgment); O'Neal 412 (C.A.5th Cir.) (appeal bond Court); Tillman 268 422 Belton 104 259 811 (letter Williams 88 212, 188 41 prison officials forwarding Court). Jordan 160, 233 362, nom. 904, 151, 114 (mandamus 2255, 2255); West 94 46, 222 774 (petition 2255 case). 37(a)(2) expressly provides: 'When imposes sentence represented advised requests, clerk prepare forthwith behalf defendant.' salutary sentencing neither retained appointed, sentence, notifies requirement prompt irrevocably lost. Hodges 108 375, 282 858, cert. granted, 365 810, 702, 690, improvidently 368 139, 140—141, 235, 236—237, 184 (dissent); Lewis Simms 107 353, 278 33; 111 294 209. fee $25. Stenographic transcripts $0.65 per page copy, $0.30 copies. Transcripts excess uncommon. printing records, appendices, illustrated records $3.80 more. waived Civ.Proc. 75(m), if, borne 1915(b), contemplate initial 'An And interpreted. 774; Waterman McMillan, 310, 135 807; Murrey 134 956 (C.A.8th Cir.); Bayless 127 531 (C.A.9th Cir.). 41(a). cf. 163, 3, 114. Senator Bacon Senate Judiciary Committee said: carried captiously, viciously, prejudice, improper motive, 45 Cong.Rec. 1533 (1910). primarily civil suits. Jaffe 246 760 (C.A.2d (civil 265, 269, 261 731, 735, Parsell 218 232 Visconti, 215 (proceeding 2255). 39(a); 12(f). authorizes Thus 'appeal' denying relief, Civil Procedure ancillary post-conviction Roberts 339 844, 845, 70 954, 1326. 41(b), apply instant complied Rule. Whitt 158. 891, requiring State furnish bill exceptions convictions. difficult, impossible, Persons death State; purchase transcript. noncapital transcripts, 'invidious discrimination' guarantees laws Eskridge Washington Board, 214, 1061, 1269; Ross Schneckloth, 575, 1387, 1547; Burns Ohio, 360 252, 1164, 1209; Douglas Green, 363 192, 1048, 1142; McCrary Indiana, 364 277, 1410, 1706; Bennett, 708, 895, 39, practices, effectively limiting person's ostensibly open all, similarly vulnerable. Brown 110 293 149; Nudelman, 207 109 (C.A.3d 562; 105 414, 267 691; Young 415, 692; Peltz, 537 Schaefer Supreme 1956 Oliver Wendell Holmes Lecture Harvard Law School, reprinted Federalism Harv.L.Rev. (1956). Jones 326, 328, 266 924, 926. There, Judge Bazelon 86 period approximately months, prepaid, 68 Of total, prepaid resulted conviction; majority paupers' affirmance. during span 1957, February 28, initially reversals ordered, more, three judges panel dissented 47 petitions subsequently denials unsuccessful applicants unique regard. Johnson: Indicted (March 1956), (May 238 565 Cir.1956), 254 175, stipulation parties, 933, 1378, 1369 (June 1958); Farley: (December 1955), 575 242 338, settling 1960), 1961), 292 789 (1961), 857, 937 (April 1962); Ellis: (September 101 386, 249 478 1060 (1958), 86, 264 372, 998, 1129, 986 1959), rehearing 945, 407, (January 1960). rejected us, Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. 395, 399—400, 1237, 1240—1241, 1323; De Binder 244, 246, 737, 739; Rose, 617, 628—630 Parr 265 894, 901—904 Cir.), grounds, 370, 1171, 1277. Procter & Gamble Co., 677, 682—684, 983, 986—987, 1077. Louisell, Discovery: Dilemma Real Apparent? 49 Calif.L.Rev. 56, 68—71 (1961); Note, Inspection Grand Jury Minutes Defendants, 1961 Wash.U.L.Q. 382. inapposite. concerned warning sounded, 845 (1961) (dissenting Subsequent events admonition wisdom indeed. 238, 296 360, 815, 110, 23. (For subsequent 370 530, 1459, 671.)

Category: 1