Court Opinion

ID: 9426437
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:57.597883+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.842356
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring in the judgment.
I am in complete accord with what is said in n. 1 of the plurality opinion, ante, at 321-322, regarding Mr. Justice Stevens’ dissent. It is not this Court’s function to rewrite 28 U. S. C. § 753 (f) in order to reflect — as that dissent appears to me to urge — what may be regarded as sound policy for the administration of our criminal justice system.
I write separately, however, to emphasize the narrowness of the constitutional issue that is before us and the ease of its resolution. The answer to this case lies, I think, in the fact that respondent MacCollom has a current opportunity to present his claims fairly, and we need not consider the constitutional significance of what he might have done at the time a direct appeal from his conviction could have been taken.
For me, the issue in this case is whether the Constitution requires that a transcript be provided when an indigent makes no showing, with any degree of particularity, that he requires the transcript in order to make an effective collateral attack on his conviction. The crucial inquiry, as the Court said in the analogous Fourteenth Amendment context, is whether § 753 (f) affords indigents “an adequate opportunity to present their claims fairly within the adversary system.” Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U. S. 600, 612 (1974).
Here, respondent was permitted to proceed in forma pauperis, and counsel was appointed for him. In order for him to obtain a transcript of his trial, he was required to show only that his claim was not frivolous and that there was a basis, grounded on some articulable facts, *330for believing that a transcript would assist him in his § 2255 proceeding. Clearly, there is no constitutional requirement that the United States provide an indigent with a transcript when that transcript is not necessary in order for him to prove his claim, or when his claim is frivolous on its face. Nor does the Constitution require that an indigent be furnished every possible legal tool, no matter how speculative its value, and no matter how devoid of assistance it may be, merely because a person of unlimited means might choose to waste his resources in a quest of that kind.
The way was thus open for respondent to present his claim fairly within the very bounds of § 753 (f). One need go no further. I therefore join the judgment reversing the Court of Appeals.