Gardner v. California

123 Citing cases

  1. People v. Cross

    30 Mich. App. 326 (Mich. Ct. App. 1971)   Cited 11 times

    We have had access only to that portion of the transcript which the prosecuting attorney quotes in his brief in opposition to the granting of leave to appeal and in opposition to defendant's request that he be furnished with the transcript. Heeding the admonition of the United States Supreme Court in Gardner v. California (1969) 393 U.S. 367 ( 89 S.Ct. 580, 21 L.Ed.2d 601), to refrain from taking the role of parens patriae, we have not searched the record to find possible error in defendant's conviction or to determine whether there exists meritorious grounds for appeal. We, therefore, refrain from granting or denying leave to appeal and will treat the claim of defendant contained in his question quoted above as an application for superintending control.

  2. Mayer v. City of Chicago

    404 U.S. 189 (1971)   Cited 477 times
    Holding that Griffin 's holding applies to appeal of a conviction for petty offenses involving only the imposition of a fine

    Id., at 499 (quoting Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438, 446 (1962)). Our decisions on the question of free transcripts for indigents include: Wade v. Wilson, 396 U.S. 282 (1970); Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U.S. 458 (1969); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367 (1969); Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40 (1967); Long v. District Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192 (1966); Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (1963); Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 (1963); Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (1962); and Eskridge v. Washington Prison Bd., 357 U.S. 214 (1958). A "record of sufficient completeness" does not translate automatically into a complete verbatim transcript.

  3. Bundy v. Wilson

    815 F.2d 125 (1st Cir. 1987)   Cited 22 times
    Upholding New Hampshire's system of discretionary appeal while requiring an opportunity to submit transcript and brief

    The Supreme Court has stated that it is a criminal defendant's "access to the record which makes any appellate review meaningful. . . ." Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 368, 89 S.Ct. 580, 581, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969). Accordingly, "there can be no doubt that the State must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript when that transcript is needed for an effective defense or appeal."

  4. Greene v. Brigano

    904 F. Supp. 675 (S.D. Ohio 1995)   Cited 2 times
    In Greene, the federal district court held that the state's failure to provide an indigent, pro se inmate with access to, or a copy of, his trial transcript for his direct appeal violated his constitutional rights to due process and equal protection.

    . . . A layman hence needs the transcript even more.Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 369-70, 89 S.Ct. 580, 582-83, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969) (emphasis added). In Gardner, a pro se habeas petitioner was denied a copy of the transcript from his original habeas proceeding.

  5. Bounds v. Smith

    430 U.S. 817 (1977)   Cited 8,531 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that states must provide prisoners with adequate law libraries or adequate assistance from persons trained in the law

    Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353, 358 (1963). See also Eskridge v. Washington Prison Bd., 357 U.S. 214 (1958) (provision of trial transcript may not be conditioned on approval of judge); Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (1963) (same); Lane v. Brown, 372 U.S. 477 (1963) (public defender's approval may not be required to obtain coram nobis transcript); Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U.S. 305 (1966) (unconstitutional to require reimbursement for cost of trial transcript only from unsuccessful imprisoned defendants); Long v. District Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192 (1966) (State must provide transcript of post-conviction proceeding); Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40 (1967) (State must provide preliminary hearing transcript); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367 (1969) (State must provide habeas corpus transcript); Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U.S. 458 (1969) (State must provide transcript of petty-offense trial); Mayer v. Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971) (State must provide transcript of nonfelony trial). The only cases that have rejected indigent defendants' claims to transcripts have done so either because an adequate alternative was available but not used, Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (1971), or because the request was plainly frivolous and a prior opportunity to obtain a transcript was waived, United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317 (1976).

  6. San Antonio School District v. Rodriguez

    411 U.S. 1 (1973)   Cited 3,126 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that classifications on the basis of geography are not suspect

    And the Court in each case emphasized that no constitutional violation would have been shown if the State had provided some "adequate substitute" for a full stenographic transcript. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 228 (1971); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367 (1969); Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (1963); Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U.S. 214 (1958). Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971); Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U.S. 458 (1969); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367 (1969); Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40 (1967); Long v. District Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192 (1966); Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (1963); Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U.S. 214 (1958).

  7. Britt v. North Carolina

    404 U.S. 226 (1971)   Cited 743 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that indigent defendants have a constitutional right to a free transcript of prior mistrial proceedings for use on retrial unless they are provided an adequate alternative

    The question here is whether the state court properly determined that the transcript requested in this case was not needed for an effective defense. Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U.S. 458 (1969); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367 (1969); Roberts v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40 (1967); Long v. District Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192 (1966); Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487 (1963); Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U.S. 214 (1958); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956). In prior cases involving an indigent defendant's claim of right to a free transcript, this Court has identified two factors that are relevant to the determination of need: (1) the value of the transcript to the defendant in connection with the appeal or trial for which it is sought, and (2) the availability of alternative devices that would fulfill the same functions as a transcript.

  8. Kennedy v. Lockyer

    379 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2004)   Cited 93 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that clearly established Supreme Court precedent requires the state to provide an indigent defendant with a full transcript of the entire trial court proceeding for use in a second trial

    See, e.g., United States v. Devlin, 13 F.3d 1361,1365 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that the state must provide an indigent defendant with a suppression hearing transcript for trial preparation purposes); United States v. Vandivere, 579 F.2d 1240, 1243 (10th Cir. 1978) (holding that "the presumption should be that indigent defendants in criminal cases are entitled to a transcript of any preliminary examination"); United States v. Young, 472 F.2d 628, 629 (6th Cir. 1972) (holding that reversal was required where the trial court refused to grant defendant's motion for a transcript of the first trial and the preliminary examination). The Supreme Court subsequently extended Griffin to require the state to provide indigent defendants with transcripts of (a) state postconviction proceedings, Long v. District of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 192-94, 87 S.Ct. 362, 17 L.Ed.2d 290 (1966) ( per curiam); (b) state habeas evidentiary hearings, Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 370, 89 S.Ct. 580, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969); and (c) petty offense trials, Williams v. Oklahoma City, 395 U.S. 458, 459, 89 S.Ct. 1818, 23 L.Ed.2d 440 (1969). As we explain later, appeals are different from second or successive trials in that appeals ordinarily involve only the specific issues the defendant chooses to raise; accordingly, only the portions of the transcript that are relevant to those specific issues must be provided in the particular case.

  9. United States v. Sliker

    751 F.2d 477 (2d Cir. 1984)   Cited 145 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court's denial of defendant's request for daily transcripts was not an abuse of discretion or denial of defendant's constitutional rights

    As said in Kamisar, LaFave and Israel, Modern Criminal Procedure 136 (5th ed. 1980), "[i]n the decade and a half following Griffin, its underlying principle was broadly applied." Perhaps most significant in the present context are Long v. District Court of Iowa, 385 U.S. 192, 87 S.Ct. 362, 17 L.Ed.2d 290 (1966) (per curiam) (indigent must be furnished a free transcript of a state habeas corpus hearing for use on appeal from denial of the writ although state law did not make its availability a necessary prerequisite to full appellate review); Robert v. LaVallee, 389 U.S. 40, 88 S.Ct. 194, 19 L.Ed.2d 141 (1967) (per curiam) (indigent defendant entitled to free transcript of preliminary hearing for use at trial); Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 580, 21 L.Ed.2d 601 (1969) (indigent prisoner entitled to free transcript of lower court habeas proceeding in bringing a new petition before a higher state court); and Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971) (indigent may be entitled on retrial to transcript of previous trial that ended with hung jury). These cases, only one of which is cited by Sliker — and this by mere reference, and none of which is cited by the Government, thus go well beyond the holding of a bare majority in Griffin that a free transcript must be provided for an appeal where lack of such a transcript or a substitute barred appellate review.

  10. Chavez v. Sigler

    438 F.2d 890 (8th Cir. 1971)   Cited 27 times
    Requiring habeas petitioner to "show a reasonably compelling need for the specific documentary evidence which he requests"

    Our decisions for more than a decade now have made clear that differences in access to the instruments needed to vindicate legal rights, when based upon the financial situation of the defendant, are repugnant to the Constitution. [ 389 U.S. at 42, 88 S. Ct. at 196] More recently, in Gardner v. California, 393 U.S. 367, 89 S.Ct. 580, 21 L.Ed. 2d 601 (1969), the Supreme Court once again faced the question of an indigent's right to a free transcript. In Gardner, the petitioner, a California state prisoner, filed a request for habeas corpus relief which the state trial court denied.