*1 MAYER v. CITY OF CHICAGO Argued No. 70-5040. October Decided December With Henry argued appellant. F. Field the cause for B. McNeill Robert him the briefs were Thomas *2 A. Burt. Curry
Richard L. With argued appellee. cause Quinlan him on William Edmund the brief were R. Hatfield. Bentivenga Biebel, Jr.,
Vincent and Paul P. filed a Attorney brief for the of Cook County, Illinois, State’s as amicus curiae urging affirmance. opinion delivered the of the
Mr. Justice Brennan Court.
juryA of County, Illinois, the Circuit Court Cook nonfelony disorderly convicted charges conduct and interference police with a officer viola- city tion of ordinances of the Chicago. He was sentenced to a $250 fine on offense; each violation of each ordinance carried a maximum $500. penalty Desiring petitioned to he the Circuit Court for a free transcript of the proceedings sup- of his trial to port grounds his of appeal the evidence was in- sufficient for conviction and that misconduct of the prosecutor denied him a fair trial.1 The Circuit Court reporter provided 1 A court was appellant’s pursuant trial to Reporters Act, the State Court Stat., Ill. 37, Rev. seq. c. et 651§ (1969). It was estimated that the cost of preparing a transcript $300. would be The record places refers in some two-day to a trial and in places three-day other to a trial. Under appellant’s Illinois law at the time of convictions an appeal lay right as of either Supreme to the Illinois Court or to the Illinois Appellate Court, depending upon the nature of the case contentions raised. See Constitution of 1870, 6, Illinois 5, Art. 7. §§ erroneously If a case was appealed wrong court, it was trans- ferred to proper any court without rights. loss of Illinois Su- preme Court Rule Ill. Stat., 110A, Rev. (1969). c. Of §365 course, whether an is discretionary or as right does not application, denied indigent, but that he was found of ordinance defendant was found guilty “that stating Court and . . rule 607 violations . Illinois The reference was felony cases.” applies part pertinent (b), Rule 607 which Supreme Court con- the defendant any “In case which provided: in which the court felony, petition of a he victed at his report was convicted for Other Illinois (Emphasis supplied.) trial.” “[i]ndigents must . right transcript, since . . indigent’s affect discretion of the” court opportunities to invoke the have the same Ohio, the costs. Burns v. 360 U. S. as those who can afford *3 2 (b) (b), Stat., 110A, 607 607 Ill. Rev. c. The full text of Rule § (1969), as follows: was any Proceedings. defendant is
“Report In case which the of felony, may petition the court in which he was convicted of a If report proceedings convicted for a of at his trial. the conduct juvenile pro- felony case is based also the basis for a which the was felony proceed, the ceeding which was dismissed so the case could request may petition report pro- a a defendant include for of his juvenile ceedings proceeding. petition in the The shall be verified by showing the petitioner the and shall state facts that he was at conviction, filing petition, time of his and is at the time of with- the report. judge imposed means to for the If out financial the who sentence, any judge court, in his absence or other of the finds that the defendant is without financial means with which to obtain the trial, report proceedings at reporter of he shall order the court original copy original to transcribe an and of his notes. The report by reporter shall be certified and filed with the clerk of below, provided copy the trial court as and the shall be certified reporter and delivered to the charge. defendant without The reporter prepares report proceedings pursuant who a of to an order paid under this rule shall be preparing same fee for provided as is for compensation reporters law of prepar- for ing transcripts in other cases.” Illinois, Following 12 U. S. (1956), Legis the Illinois Griffin lature transcripts indigents authorized free for “[u]pon imposition any sentence in a criminal case.” Stat., See Ill. Ann. c. provided (c) (d), and for Rules 323 Court rules. transcript in a to a theTTorm of “Settled alternatives “Agreed of Facts.” With- Statement” or an Statement resorting alternative, made mo- out either m Court for an order that he be tion Illinois (a) appended 121-13 and committee comments thereto § However, authority allowing Court, under State effect, id., provisions governing appeals, to amend code criminal 121-1, promulgated (b) authorizing transcripts the court Rule 607 § expense only indigents felony. at state convicted of The rule 1, 1971, July “any apply was amended effective case which punishable by imprisonment defendant is convicted an offense Legislative for more than Service, six months.” 1971 Illinois No. p. 1703. rules, Stat., These Ill. 110A, (c) (d) (1969), Rev. c. §323 provided:
“(c) Transcript Procedure If No Verbatim Is Available. If no verbatim proceedings of the evidence or is obtainable the appellant may prepare report proposed from the sources, best available including recollection. It shall be served days within seven after appeal the notice of is filed. 21 days Within after the filed, notice of any party other pro- serve posed proposed report amendments or his proceedings. Within days seven thereafter, appellant shall, upon notice, present the proposed report reports any proposed amendments to the trial court for approval. settlement and court, holding hear- ings if necessary, promptly settle, shall and order filed certify, report accurate proceedings. *4 “(d) Agreed Statement of Facts. parties The stipula- written may agree tion upon a statement of the facts to material the con- troversy and it file in lieu of and within the filing time for report of proceedings.” These rules were also amended July 1971, effective but not in 1, ways material to this case. See 1971 Legislative Service, Illinois 5, p. No. Despite 1690. provision limiting use of a “Settled” statement to cases where no verbatim transcript is “available” or “obtainable,” procedure of (c) subsection evidently permissible is even though the reporter’s court notes are available for transcrip- tion. See New Tone, Court Expeditious Rule on and In- expensive Appeals, 53 Ill. B. (1964). J. 20
193 cost. without of furnished order unreported in an the motion denied Court jurisdic- probable noted We opinion. filing without constitution- challenging appellant’s tion of cases. felony (b) 607 of Rule the limitation ality of (1971). 906 401 U. S.
I
watershed
Illinois,
is
(1956),
U.
12
v.
351
S.
Griffin
that
held there
"[d]es
We
transcript decisions.
of our
appellate
be afforded
defendants must
titute
buy
enough
have money
defendants who
review as
Id.,
rested
holding
This
transcripts."
at 19.
guaranties
pro
equal
process and
of due
"constitutional
in criminal
procedures
for
call
tection both [of which]
between
no invidious discriminations
trials which allow
Id., at 17.
of
groups
different
persons and
persons."
costs
ad
ability
"[p]lainly
that
We said
relationship to
defendant's
bears no rational
vance
id.,
and concluded
,"
17-18,
.
at
guilt or innocence . .
kind
justice
equal
be no
where
can
"[t]here
money
depends on the amount
gets
trial a man
Id.,
city
Appellee
Chicago urges
has."
19.
For
We decline to do so.
"it
re-examine
we
Griffin.
established . . . avenues
that,
now fundamental
once
kept free of unreasoned
must be
[of
review]
open
impede
equal
can
access
distinctions that
Yeager,
the courts." Rinaldi
310
v.
384 U. S.
duty
(1966).4 Therefore,
all cases the
of the State
"[i]n
4
question
transcripts
indigents
Our decisions on the
free
Wilson,
Williams Okla
(1970);
include: Wade
v.
U. S.
v.
City,
California,
homa
Gardner v.
(1969);
pellate given review that In Draper Washington, v. 372 U. S. this must record, terms of trial means that the State a " indigent completeness’ afford the `record of sufficient Id., permit proper claims." consideration [his] States, (quoting Coppedge v. United 369 U. S. 446 (1962)). completeness”
A “record of sufficient does not translate automatically a complete transcript. into- verbatim We “may said in State find other means [than Griffin providing stenographic transcripts affording adequate for] appellate effective review to indigent defendants.” S., 351 U. at 20. We fully considered more Draper Washington, supra, at 495-496:
“Alternative of reporting trial proceedings methods are place before permissible if they court an equivalent report of the events at trial from which the appellant's contentions arise. A state ment of agreed facts both sides, a full nar rative statement perhaps based trial judge's minutes taken during trial or on the court reporter's untranscribed notes, bystander's or a bill excep tions might all be substitutes, equally as good as a transcript. Moreover, part or all of the stenographic transcript in certain cases will not be germane to consideration of the appeal, and State will not required be expend its funds unneces sarily in such If, circumstances. for instance, points urged relate only to the validity of the statute sufficiency upon indictment which con viction was predicated, the transcript is irrelevant and need not be provided. If assignments error go only to rulings on evidence or to its suffi ciency, the transcript provided might well be limited portions to the relevant to such issues. Even as to *6 unnecessary to afford isit issue, however, this kind of alleged to an pertaining a record of the as a is irrelevant point which on a proof failure of crime for which elements matter of law to the examples In the has been convicted. the defendant with funds an appellant that given, the fact unnecessarily including money by his choose to waste does not mean the in all of record the by providing funds the must waste its that State appellate for review.” unnecessary adequate what is however, provide must that the State emphasize, We where to assure full verbatim record necessary a as would be available appeal effective indigent the as way. his own the defendant with resources in case, Moreover, grounds where the complete transcript, need for a make out a colorable only a portion burden is on the State show for an "alternative" will suffice or an under grounds. effective on those rationale This Draper, supra, our statement that: lies to show that could endeavored State have “[T]he tran- portion narrative statement adequate available script would be The trial petitioners’ consideration of contentions. . . complied have with . the constitu- judge would in limiting grant tional ... accord- mandate by showing basis of such a ingly State.”
II
nonfelony
between
offenses
felony
The distinction
by
(b)
satisfy
can more
require
drawn
Rule 607
no
like
Fourteenth Amendment
than could the
ments
California,
S.,
(noting
also
v.
at 370
no
See
Gardner
393 U.
;
suggestion
transcript)
made of an
for a full
substitute
Eskridge Washington
Bd.,
S.,
v.
Prison
(noting
357 U.
at 215
State’s
availability
notes).
failure to
of trial
show
Groppi
distinction
law,
Wisconsin
held invalid
Wisconsin,
permitted
III The city Chicago urges another distinction to set progeny. apart this case from Griffin and city its The the notes that defendants all the transcript cases previously decided this Court were sentenced to some accused, term of confinement. Where the here, as is not subject to only fine, imprisonment, but a city suggests that his interest a outweighed by is State's fiscal and other in not interests burdening the appellate process. This argument misconceives principle of no less than does line that Rule Griffin (b) expressly not draws. does Griffin represent balance between the needs of the accused and the interests society; principle f its is o a flat prohibition against true, city It as Chicago argues, that in Williams the effectively defendant any right was denied whereas here precedent was not condition for appeal. The con infirmity stitutional (b) in Rule 607 is not the less for that reason. indigent The defendant be must afforded as effective an appeal as pay. the defendant who can appeal of as effective out defendants
pricing indigent own their pay able others be available as would exists discrimination invidiousness way. The only available made are procedures criminal when in the any differences is not erased can who those in fiscal The State's may imposed. be sentences Thompson, Shapiro v. Cf. irrelevant. therefore, is, terest 394 U. S. in the problem approaching even add that
We the answer hardly yields city suggests terms of even of conviction practical effects tenders. city be are not to here kind involved offenses of the petty indigent heavily on an A fine bear minimized. conse- The collateral forced confinement. accused as as when serious, more may be even of conviction quences im- case) possibility apparently a (as was from the finds himself barred medical student pecunious he is unable conviction medicine because of a practice of long- the State’s Moreover, for lack of funds. access making to lie appear interest would not term *8 most inferior courts processes from even its appellate to It has been ability pay. upon the defendant’s depend aptly said: higher contact with the citizens ever have
“[F]ew police and the lower main, In the it is the courts. our convey the essence of Bar that court Bench and democracy people. measured, if can be must be measured it
“Justice, citizen has with the experience average 7 courts.” police and the lower of review of Arbitrary denial of trial courts save the some lowest State State’s Society, in Our Murphy, The Role of the Police Modem City the Association of the Bar of the of New York The Record of (1971). at the risk of cents, gen- dollars and but only substantial hostility among frustration and toward its courts erating justice. numerous consumers of most
IV
appellant
We conclude that
cannot be denied a “rec-
con-
completeness”
permit proper
ord of sufficient
repeat
sideration of his claims. We
this does not
automatically
mean that he is
entitled to a full verbatim
transcript. He
urges
insufficiency
that his claims
prejudicial prosecutorial
evidence and
misconduct
fairly
be
judged
cannot
without
recourse to the trial
Draper
record.8
suggests
these are indeed the kinds
require provision
claims that
of a verbatim tran-
script.9
California,
Gardner v.
See also
It is so ordered. Burger, Mr. Chief Justice concurring.
I join opinion the Court’s but add these observations to underscore that there are alternatives in chiefly majority full of cases to a verbatim of an Draper entire trial. The references to what was said in Washington, (1963), emphasize duty U. S. 487 of counsel as officers of the court to seek what is *10 one, unlike cases, needed. In most essential dispute dispute or if is facts are not in on there aspects of the case. it centers on certain limited One in appeals examine briefs to see that at the need gener- the area of conflict the facts is appellate stage ally narrow.
Every busy plagued court is with excessive demands My transcripts experi- in criminal cases.1 own for free years employed that privately ence over the indicates usually spartan in their demands counsel are because Unfortunately client his own costs. one con- must the advent of the Criminal Act and sequence of Justice by when counterparts paid is that costs are state counsel are sometimes public, profligate demands, their requested It is not the transcripts increase number of alone delay. delay which has resulted in by The has been caused system combination of this increase with the failure to in ability produce transcripts. crease its Cf. Committee of Section Association, Criminal Law of American Appellate Bar Delay in Report, A Q. (1964). Criminal Cases: Am. Crim. L. In typical reporter situation in federal independent courts the is an contractor selected the Government to make a verbatim record proceedings. of the entire In reporter some States the court is systems employee. In most reporter independently contracts parties with the to transcribe the record at per a certain fee page. Although supervisory courts power have reporter, over the adminis tration of the transcribing of the largely *11 real vice system; objective not is an deter- and hence transcripts securing sulting delay are made demands When excessive appeal. mining day when postpone appellant order he is example, because, finally determined, is cooperates is lawyer who liberty appeal,2 a pending unprofessional conduct. guilty of full Brennan that “a Mr. I with Justice quite agree necessary should be where that . . .” record verbatim duty avoid lawyers have a provided judges but promote delays. abuses that Blackmun, concurring.
Mr. Justice Court. opinion judgment I in the concur record indicates merely I add an observation: The against brought were charges when the he was third- indigency, he asserted his appellant and Medical University School. year New York student has years, in the two intervening Perhaps, Perhaps now professional training. his completed If these will so, earning living. and is is even licensed the Illinois courts to be considered by be factors remand. Association, Project for Criminal Bar on Standards American See 1970),
Justice, Appeals (Approved Draft which con 2.3 Criminal § pending appeal” release is one of cludes “[a]utomatic id., taking appeals.” 2.5. “unacceptable inducements to See also § notes often left if not completely to the reporter. discretion of the generally See Admin istrative Office of the United Courts, States Reporting Court System in the United States District Courts 7-47 With the enormous cases, increase criminal reporters are often unable keep up with the transcripts demand for and at the same time with regular continue reporting. reporters Some fail to make ade quate arrangements stenographers for notes, transcribe their which can be done someone other reporter. than the The failure of give courts to supervision to the work of reporters court delay accounts for much of the in processing appeals. Courts have an obligation to exercise oversight sufficient reporters to ensure are transcribed dispatch. with client’s desires. professional judgment yield their society An affluent of costs. than a matter This is more economy miserly support justice, not be ought re- is the