Griffin v. Illinois

3 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Appeal - Transcripts

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    Greene v. Brigano, 123 F.3d 917 (6th Cir. 1997) As a matter of due process and equal protection, the state must afford an indigent defendant a trial transcript. See Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226 (1971); Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956). The fact that the defendant chose to represent himself on appeal did not operate to deprive him of the right to a transcript.

  2. Supreme Court Addresses a Kafka-Esque Situation

    Atlanta's John Marshall Law SchoolTimothy O'NeillJune 10, 2011

    Here the U.S. Supreme Court drew the line and found no constitutional right. Ross v. Moffitt, 417 U.S. 600 (1974). The court noted that at this point in the criminal proceedings a defendant had been provided with trial counsel, a trial transcript (Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12 (1956)), appellate briefs and the appellate opinion. This work product would provide sufficient information for a higher court to decide whether to review the case.

  3. Capital Defense Weekly, January 17, 2000

    Capital Defense NewsletterJanuary 17, 2000

    ., joined. Souter, J., filed a concurring opinion. Scalia, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which Kennedy, J., joined.Smith v. Robbins Anders is not the only method of protecting an indigent's right toappealHeld: 1. The Anders procedure is only one method of satisfying the Constitution’s requirements for indigent criminal appeals; the States are free to adopt different procedures, so long as those procedures adequately safeguard a defendant’s right to appellate counsel. Pp. 6—13. (a) In finding that the California procedure at issue in Anders–which permitted appellate counsel to withdraw upon filing a conclusory letter stating that the appeal had “no merit” and permitted the appellate court to affirm the conviction upon reaching the same conclusion following a review of the record–did not comport with fair procedure and lacked the equality that the Fourteenth Amendment requires, this Court placed the case within a line of precedent beginning with Griffin v. Illinois,351 U.S. 12, and continuing with Douglas v. California,372 U.S. 353, that imposed constitutional constraints on those States choosing to create appellate review. Comparing the California procedure to other procedures that this Court had found invalid and to statutory requirements in the federal courts governing appeals by indigents with appointed counsel, the Court concluded that the finding that the appeal had “no merit” was inadequate because it did not mean that the appeal was so lacking in prospects as to be frivolous. The Court, in a final, separate section, set out what would be an acceptable procedure for treating frivolous appeals. Pp. 6—9.(b) The Ninth Circuit erred in finding that Anders’sfinal section, though unnecessary to the holding in that case, was obligatory upon the States. This Court has never so held; its precedents suggest otherwise; and the Ninth Circuit’s view runs contrary to this Court’s established practice. In McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wis., Dist. 1,486 U.S. 429, thi