Court Opinion

ID: 9453032
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:00:16.25402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:33:28.342037
License: Public Domain

BURGER, Circuit Judge,
concurs in the result.
SUPPLEMENTAL OPINIONS
PER CURIAM:
The opinion of this court rendered January 18, 1967, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, but called attention to the injustice of a situation where an accused cannot get his appeal considered on the merits because he served his sentence before a transcript was prepared. We did not seek in that opinion to identify the causes of delay, but instead referred to them as an amalgam of many factors.
We had not supposed it would become the province of an opinion to deal in more detail with what is essentially an administrative problem. We have done so in this supplemental opinion in order to provide perspective for the apparently simple solution developed in the opinion which our concurring colleague prepared after January 18, 1967, and which isolates one of these factors for extended discussion.
It is apparently suggested that the problem of transcript delay could be substantially solved by changing our practice so that in general trial counsel will be appointed for appellate presentation.
We believe that it is entirely appropriate to propose for discussion by the Judicial Council and Judicial Conference, including the Committees thereof, whether and in what situation appellate counsel should be the same as trial counsel. However, it seems to us that this is a matter that should be decided in terms of fundamentals of the administration of justice, and that for this purpose the courts should be able to take for granted the capability of reporters to furnish transcripts with reasonable promptness.
I
The problem of transcript delay is essentially an administrative problem that has swollen as an incident of the rapid increase in the number of criminal appeals filed in our court. The 1966 report of the Presidential Commission generally referred to as the D. C. Crime Commission was concerned with the problem and recommended that the courts focus on the adequacy of the reporting staff. The data in the Commission’s report show a dramatic surge in criminal appeals beginning in fiscal 1963.1
2For fiscal years 1952-62, criminal appeals ranged in number from 71 to 136, with a median of 97 and an average of 101. In the four fiscal years 1963-1966, criminal appeals numbered: 200; 251; 237; and 252. The Commission.noted that this in part reflected an increase in the percentage of convicted defendants taking appeals, and stated: “The rapid increase in recent years is probably attributable in part to recent judicial decisions which have made appeals by indigent persons more widely possible.” (Report at 301). Its Report cited, of course, the Supreme Court’s decisions in Hardy, Coppedge and Ellis?
It should be noted that the recent trend in our circuit approximately parallels the overall national trend for the eleven courts of appeals. The national data show that in the earlier period criminal appeals averaged about 600, ranging from 308 to 731, but that in the last four fiscal years criminal appeals have numbered: 985, 1188, 1305, and 1262.
*929As to the specific problem of transcript delay and the consequent delay in disposition of criminal appeals, the D. C. Crime Commission recommended that this court and the District Court establish a joint committee “to investigate and ensure the adequacy of the court reporting staff.” 3 The Judicial Council has discussed the problems several times with Chief Judge Curran of the District Court, accompanied on one occasion by another District Judge.
The administrative problem of transcript delay primarily requires consideration of the practices and compensation of the court reporters, matters now under consideration by the District Court. Reforms and improvements have been achieved; others are in prospect. .Chief Judge Curran has designated himself as Liaison Judge with the Court Reporters, and has recently issued Rules for Court Reporters that establish a number of pertinent administrative requirements. A system for rotation of duty has been established — a matter that may well be of prime significance since analysis of data available to the Judicial Council shows that only four out of twenty reporters are responsible for significant transcript delay (over 1,000 pages) and that they account for more than 60% of the backlog of some 12,000 pages as of the end of March. Even prior to the institution of this reform backlog was cut by a not inconsiderable 7% in February, and by the end of March the new system contributed to a reduction in transcript backlog from over 16,000 pages to fewer than 12,000, an inroad of over 25% in one month.
II
The revamping of the administrative approach to the reporter problem should obviously be continued whatever is done about the suggestion of our concurring colleague that the court stress continuance of trial counsel. Reverting to that suggestion we think, as already indicated, that the problem involves issues of judicial administration of more significance than, though not excluding, transcript delay. Assuming that retention of trial counsel might trim the transcripts ordered from reporters, a curtailment that we think will be far more modest than our concurring colleague visualizes, this administrative benefit must be weighed alongside the substantial benefits inhering in assignment of new counsel for the appeal. Full and ripe discussion of the interrelated policy and administrative considerations should embrace the following inquiries, among others.
1. Would retention of trial counsel materially reduce the requests for trial transcripts ?
It is a mistake to suppose that a request for full transcript emanates from unfamiliarity with the trial, or from the attitude that the transcript might as well be ordered when it is “free.” Exactly the contrary is the thrust of Justice Goldberg’s opinion in Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277, 288, 84 S.Ct. 424, 431 (1964), that “no responsible retained lawyer who represents a defendant at trial will rely exclusively on his memory (even as supplemented by trial notes) in composing a list of possible trial errors which delimit his appeal. Nor should this be required of an appointed lawyer.” 375 U.S. at 288, 84 S.Ct. at 431 (concurring opinion). Justice Goldberg was joined by Chief Justice Warren and Justices Brennan and Stewart.4 The other three justices who joined in the *930opinion of the Court did not disagree with this statement, but found it unnecessary to consider the matter. Justice Clark was alone in advocating a requirement that trial counsel be retained for the appeal. Congress did not accept his suggestion that such a provision be inserted in the Criminal Justice Act.
Our own files reinforce the conclusion that continuance of trial counsel will not result in a material transcript saving.5 Our records enable us to locate quickly the 17-odd cases in the current term and prior term where trial counsel was designated for the appeal by the District Court, and we find that the testimony was invariably transcribed in full and in only half the cases does the order for transcription issued by the District Judge exclude even summations and voir dire examinations.6 Arraignment, plea and sentencing have been routinely transcribed in all cases.7
2. Is continuance of trial counsel a fair and efficient use of available legal manpower ?
One subsidiary question is whether it is appropriate to induce further effort at this time from trial counsel who has already given time that we realistically know is not compensated by the modest sums available under the Criminal Justice Act. As the D. C. Crime Commission has put it, this representation by private lawyers “remains a substantial public service.” 8 If the matter is left to the option of trial counsel it may develop that the better and busier trial counsel will ask to be excused while the others remain.
More significant are these core facts: We have a shortage of legal manpower experienced in criminal law. (Hopefully the supply is being augmented by recent changes in the curriculum and emphasis of the law schools in the District.) And even the pool of effective trial counsel in general practice is somewhat limited.
However there is a substantial number of lawyers located in the nation’s capital who handle matters before agencies of Government and possess appellate background and experience.
At least as a general rule, it would seem meritorious to devote the scarcer commodity, experienced trial counsel, to the trial function, and to draw for the appeal on the larger pool of lawyers accustomed to briefing and oral argument on points of law.
Furthermore, Washington attorneys specializing in practice before Federal agencies and departments typically have clients located elsewhere throughout the nation for the most part, and they are more likely to be out of town for substantial time periods. It is obvious that lawyers with such schedules are better able to discharge appointments at the appellate level than at the trial level where there is a need for timely investigation and pursuit of evidence.
3. Still more fundamental is this question, is there a significant benefit to the court in having the insight of fresh appellate counsel?
We are in general appreciative of the insights provided by the Assistant United States Attorneys appearing be*931fore us, attorneys who almost invariably are brought in at the appellate stage.
Although in recommending increased use of public defender counsel the D.C. Crime Commission cited the advantage of continuity in representation at both preliminary hearing and at trial, it took specific note that the continuity principle should not require that trial counsel be used for appeal. “[T]he advantages of the new perspective brought by the appellate advocate sometimes outweigh those of familiarity with the pretrial and trial proceedings.” 9
The significance of the fresh-look aspect of new appellate counsel is even greater when trial counsel are not specialists in criminal law, as the Crime Commission presupposed in its recommendation of professional public defenders. Out of necessity the counsel appointed to represent indigents at the trial include lawyers who, although they have general trial experience, frequently do not have the kind of background in criminal law and procedure possessed by those lawyers who are retained for criminal cases. There may well be a substantial and critical time lag before they become aware of decisions that have become the common coin of those specializing in the field.10
The need to appoint counsel less experienced or inexperienced in criminal law, while not of itself negativing the effective assistance of counsel guaranteed by the Constitution, underscores the benefit of a fresh look to assist the court in its basic inquiry, whether justice has been done.
We understand that in some cases, at least, counsel appointed for the trial affirmatively welcome the appointment of new counsel for the appeal so that there may be a fresh look where liberty turns on their performance in an area where they claim no expertise.
Ultimately, perhaps, the system should be changed or adapted so as to assure heightened expertise from the start. In the meantime, however, problems inherent in the current stage of the system of assigned counsel are at least ameliorated by the assignment of new counsel on appeal.
4. Is the court aided in its disposition if it has available a full trial transcript?
Not infrequently appellant contends that the judgment is not supported by the evidence, and in that ease he is required to print “all material portions of the testimony and evidence.” D.C.Cir. Rule 16(a).11
However other errors which on their face do not relate to the evidence are appraised by the court in the light of the evidence. They cannot be judged in a vacuum. A charge must conform to the evidence adduced,12 alleged errors in the receipt or exclusion of evidence must be assessed in factual context,13 and error which might be prejudicial in a close case does not call for reversal in a strong *932one.14 These considerations, which also apply to consideration of prejudice from summation, and which must be coupled with our obligation to notice plain error whether or not raised,15 indicate the benefit that inures to the court as well as to counsel from a complete transcript.
5. Is there a problem of denying the indigents the same access to appellate review as the rich ? 16
The fundamental principle, announced in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19, 76 S.Ct. 585, 591, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956) (opinion of Black, J.), that “[d]estitute defendants must be afforded as adequate appellate review as defendants who have money enough to buy transcrips” has undeniable vitality. See Smith v. Bennett, 365 U.S. 708, 81 S.Ct. 895, 6 L.Ed.2d 39 (1961); Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477, 83 S.Ct. 768, 9 L.Ed.2d 892 (1963); and Long v. District Court, 385 U.S. 192, 87 S.Ct. 362, 17 L.Ed.2d 290 (1966). The latest in this unbroken string is the Court’s decision three days ago in Anders v. State of California, No. 98, October Term 1966, 87 S.Ct. 1396. And the companion case to Anders, Entsminger v. State of Iowa, No. 252, October Term 1966, 87 S.Ct. 1402, although not necessarily ruling squarely on the point, certainly reflected stern disapproval of a procedure whereby trial counsel elected to have the case presented to an appellate court on less than the full record, at least in the absence of notice to the indigent appellant.
In the last analysis, the problem is one of perspective. Our sense of proportion suggests that the capability of providing full transcripts, in an appropriate administrative setting, is not so demanding of the resources of court personnel as to require the courts to take steps that may hamper relief from prejudice and withhold assistance to the court.
There may well be merit in appointment of trial counsel to handle the appeal in more eases — even though for reasons already noted we do not think this would or should substantially reduce trial transcripts. The matter merits consideration upon evaluation of the pro’s and con’s in the general administration of criminal justice — not excluding but certainly not limited to the mechanical question of trial transcripts. Consideration should be on the primary issues and merits, and not on relatively tangential aspects.

. See Report op the President’s Commission on Crime in the District op Columbia 303 (1966) (hereafter Report) .

. See Report at 958 nn. 177 & 196, citing Hardy v. United States, 375 U.S. 277, 84 S.Ct. 424, 11 L.Ed.2d 331 (1964); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 82 S.Ct. 917, 8 L.Ed.2d 21 (1962); Ellis v. United States, 356 U.S. 674, 78 S.Ct. 974, 2 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1958).

. Report at 308.

. While criminal cases are obviously not of equal length, there is little reason to believe that differences in trial time bear significantly on the transcript problem.
In both long and short trials the natural tendency of counsel is to order the full transcript unless there is positive reason for specifying omissions. In the longer trial pruning the transcript may save some money, but there is a greater risk of overlooking the significance of trial developments. In the short trial, the small saving in transcript cost is not likely to be considered worth the trouble.
Of course very different “pruning” considerations are applicable to the issue as to what portions of the transcript need to be printed or xeroxed for the Joint Appendix.

. We do not suggest that appellate counsel should routinely order transcription of the voir dire when no reason therefor is suggested in the conference held with trial counsel to become familiar with the nature of the case.

. The file numbers are Nos. 19114, 19287, 19326, 19327, 19497, 19599, 19620, 19672, 19762, 19883, 19895, 19909, 19964, 20037, 20108, 20268, and 20322.
We doubt that there would be a difference in result if we were to undertake the special study required to identify the cases where this court has appointed trial counsel to handle the appeal. (Incidentally, this court has on occasion made such an appointment even where the counsel at trial was a member of the staff of the Legal Aid Agency. E.g., Nos. 19241, 19642, 19978.)

. See 28 U.S.C. § 753(b) (Supp. II, 1966). It is possible that a reduction in transcripts can be achieved by greater reliance on electronic recordings, but that is of course a separate and not simple inquiry.

. Report at 343.

. Report at 346.

. This was dramatically illustrated by a recent statement on argument by a generally competent counsel, appointed for a criminal appeal, that he had never heard of the landmark Luck case which permits trial courts to exercise discretion in allowing defendants to testify without fear of impeachment by reference to prior criminal convictions. Luck v. United States, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 151, 348 F. 2d 763 (1965). Counsel had not come across the case because it was not yet in the D.C. Digest. Requests invoking the Luck rule are frequently made by attorneys specializing in criminal practice.

. An appellate court may not entertain this issue without a transcript of all the evidence. E. g., Strangway v. United States, 312 F.2d 283 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 373 U.S. 903, 83 S.Ct. 1291, 10 L. Ed.2d 199 (1963).

. See, e.g., Harris v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 21, 331 F.2d 95 (1963); Johnson v. United States, 115 U.S.App. D.C. 63, 317 F.2d 127 (1963); McDonald v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 120, 312 F.2d 847 (1962) (en banc).

. E.g., Hardy v. United States, 118 U.S. App.D.C. 253, 335 F.2d 288 (1964).

. E.g., Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967); Cross v. United States, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 283, 285, 353 F.2d 454, 456 (1965); Jones v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 213, 214 n. 3, 338 F.2d 553, 554 n. 3 (1964).

. E.g., King v. United States, 125 U.S. App.D.C. 318, 372 F.2d 383 (1966); Go-forth v. United States, 106 U.S.App.D.C. 111, 269 F.2d 778 (1959).

. We think it may be fairly assumed that those with resources will have the benefit on appeal of a complete transcript. Exceptions may well be tactical. For example, in Laughlin and Forte v. United States, Nos. 19562, 19563, the Government designated the portions of the transcript omitted by appellants.