holding in favor of indigent defendant and stating that the state failed to show availability of trial notes to substitute for a full transcript

holding that one level of review — by the trial judge only — "cannot be an adequate substitute for the right to full appellate review available to all defendants in Washington who can afford the expense of a transcript"

holding that indigents have a right to a transcript on appeal as announced in Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891, to be retroactive

holding as unconstitutional state law that allowed trial judge to determine whether there was reversible error before providing trial transcript to indigent defendant for direct appeal

holding that "[t]he conclusion of the trial judge that there was no reversible error in the trial cannot be an adequate substitute for the right to full appellate review available to all defendants ... who can afford the expense of a transcript"

rejecting a state law provision giving a free transcript only when defendant could convince a trial judge that it would be in the interest of justice

invalidating state rule giving free transcripts only to defendants who could convince trial judge that "justice will thereby be promoted"

noting State's failure to show availability of trial notes

In Eskridge v. Washington PrisonBoard, 357 U.S. 214 (1958), we held that a State may not withhold a transcript and thereby deny an appeal to a poor man merely because a trial judge believed his own conduct had avoided the production of nonfrivolous questions for review.

In Eskridge the Court held constitutionally invalid a provision which permitted a trial judge to prevent an indigent from taking an effective appeal.

In Eskridge the question was the validity of Washington's long-standing procedure whereby an indigent defendant would receive a stenographic transcript at public expense only if, in the opinion of the trial judge, "justice will thereby be promoted."

In Eskridge this Court held that "[t]he conclusion of the trial judge that there was no reversible error in the trial cannot be an adequate substitute for the right to full appellate review available to all defendants in Washington who can afford the expense of a transcript."

In Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U.S. 214, the Court held invalid a provision of Washington's criminal appellate system which conferred upon the trial judge the power to withhold a trial transcript from an indigent upon the finding that "justice would not be promoted... in that defendant has been accorded a fair and impartial trial, and in the Court's opinion no grave or prejudicial errors occurred therein."

In Eskridge, in ruling invalid Washington's statute permitting a trial judge to deny a transcript to an indigent who appeals if he concludes that furnishing the transcript would not promote justice, the Court remarked, "[t]he conclusion of the trial judge that there was no reversible error in the trial cannot be an adequate substitute for the right to full appellate review * * *."

In Eskridge v. Prison Board, 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 (1958) and Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 83 S.Ct. 774 (1963), a denial of equal protection was found where the trial judge was given the power to withhold a trial transcript from an indigent upon the determination that an appeal would be without merit.

applying Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 to a 1935 conviction

In Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms, 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269, a holding that a transcript must be furnished to every indigent seeking review of his conviction was expressly disowned, while in Burns v. State of Ohio, 360 U.S. 252, 79 S.Ct. 1164, 3 L.Ed.2d 1209, there was an expression of approval of the Illinois response to the Griffin decision.

In Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 decided in 1958, the Supreme Court applied the rule announced in Griffin, supra, to a state conviction obtained in 1935.

In Eskridge v. Washington State Bd. of Prison Terms and Paroles, 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269, the defendant was convicted of murder in a Washington State Court in 1935, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He gave timely notice of appeal to the Supreme Court of the State, but was unable to obtain a review because of the state's failure to furnish a free transcript.

reaffirming that States must afford indigent defendants adequate appellate review

stating that "a State denies a constitutional right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment if it allows all convicted defendants to have appellate review except those who cannot afford to pay for the records of their trials"

In Eskridge v. Washington Prison Board, 357 U.S. 214, the Court held invalid a provision of Washington's criminal appellate system which conferred upon the trial judge the power to withhold a trial transcript from an indigent upon the finding that "justice would not be promoted * * * in that defendant has been accorded a fair and impartial trial, and in the Court's opinion no grave or prejudicial errors occurred therein."

In Eskridge v. Washington State Board, etc., 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 (1958), this rule, first enunciated in 1956, was held to be retroactive.

In Eskridge v. Washington etc., 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269 (1958), the trial judge was statutorily authorized to provide the indigent defendant with a transcript of the trial proceedings at public expense, "* * * if in his opinion justice will thereby be promoted."

In Eskridge v. Washington State Board of Prison Terms and Paroles, 357 U.S. 214, 78 S.Ct. 1061, 2 L.Ed.2d 1269, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the State of Washington had deprived a convicted person of a constitutional right (Fourteenth Amendment) in that it denied him his right of appellate review because he could not afford to pay for the record of his trial.