Griffin v. Illinois
The Supreme Court ruled that Illinois could not give meaningful appeals only to defendants who could pay for a trial transcript while denying the same review to those too poor to afford one.
The decision sent the case back to the Illinois courts to find some way — a transcript or another adequate substitute — to give poor defendants the same real chance at appellate review that wealthier defendants already had.
“There can be no equal justice where the kind of trial a man gets depends on the amount of money he has.”
The majority's central statement that wealth cannot determine the quality of justice a defendant receives.
How it got here: The trial court denied a free transcript; a post-conviction petition was dismissed by the Illinois Supreme Court; the men then sought Supreme Court review.
The Case in Depth
What happened
Two men, Griffin and Crenshaw, were convicted of armed robbery in Illinois state court. After conviction, they asked the trial court for a free transcript of the proceedings, saying they were too poor to pay for one and needed it to pursue an appeal claiming trial errors. Illinois denied their request, and without a transcript they could not get full appellate review of their claims.
The question before the Court
Could Illinois let only defendants who could afford a trial transcript get real appellate review of their convictions?
The Court's answer
No — the Court ruled that Illinois could not let only defendants who could pay for a trial transcript get meaningful appellate review of their convictions. Once a state creates a system of criminal appeals, the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses forbid administering it so that poverty alone blocks a defendant from having trial errors reviewed.
The Court did not order Illinois to buy every defendant a stenographic transcript. Instead, it required Illinois to provide some adequate substitute — a free transcript or another effective method — so that poor and wealthy defendants alike could get a real chance at appellate review, leaving the specific mechanism to the state's discretion.
Curious how the Court got there? See the step-by-step legal reasoning →
Why it matters
Poor defendants who cannot afford a stenographic transcript can no longer be shut out of appeals that wealthier defendants can pursue. States must find some way — a free transcript, a substitute record, or another method — to give indigent defendants a genuine opportunity to have trial errors reviewed, reshaping how appeals work for the poor nationwide.
What changes now
The case was sent back to the Illinois Supreme Court to work out how to give the two men an adequate appeal, whether through a free transcript or some other means Illinois might devise, such as a narrative bill of exceptions. The ruling did not specify exactly what states must do, leaving room for Illinois and other states to develop their own procedures for indigent appeals going forward.
What this does not decide
The Court did not require Illinois to buy a stenographic transcript in every case where a defendant cannot afford one; it left open that other methods, like a bystanders' bill of exceptions, could satisfy the constitutional requirement of adequate appellate review for the poor.
Concurrences and dissents
Concurrence — Justice Frankfurter
Justice Frankfurter agreed with the outcome but reasoned mainly from equal protection principles about arbitrary classifications rather than treating appeals as inherently required by due process. He stressed the ruling should apply mainly going forward, not retroactively unsettle old convictions, and left Illinois wide discretion to choose how to fix the problem.
Dissent — Justice Minton
“Illinois is not bound to make the defendants economically equal before its bar of justice.”The dissent's core objection that the Constitution does not require states to erase economic differences between defendants.
Justices Burton and Minton, joined by Reed and Harlan, argued the Constitution does not require states to give free transcripts to indigent defendants, viewing this as a matter of local policy rather than constitutional command. They argued Illinois's distinction between capital and noncapital cases was reasonable, and that failing to equalize economic circumstances is not the same as unconstitutional discrimination.
Dissent — Justice Harlan
Justice Harlan argued the record was too unclear to decide the constitutional question and would have sent the case back for clarification first. He also argued on the merits that Illinois's failure to provide free transcripts was not arbitrary or shocking to fundamental fairness, and that requiring states to fund indigent appeals oversteps the Court's role in a federalist system.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court framed the issue as one of both Due Process and Equal Protection: while a State need not provide any appeal at all, once it creates a system of appellate review, it cannot administer that system so as to discriminate against people based on how much money they have.
- The Court reasoned that Illinois had, in practice, made a full appeal available only to defendants who could pay for a stenographic transcript, since a transcript was often the only realistic way to prepare the bill of exceptions needed to get trial errors reviewed.
- Drawing an analogy to the right to a fair trial itself, the Court reasoned that just as a State could not charge admission to a courtroom to those unable to pay, it could not charge an effective admission fee to the appellate process either, because ability to pay bears no relation to guilt or innocence.
- Because indigent defendants sentenced to death already received free transcripts, and post-conviction petitioners could get transcripts for constitutional claims, the Court found Illinois had already recognized that funds could be provided — showing the disparity for ordinary trial-error claims was not compelled by necessity.
- The Court concluded that destitute defendants must be given as adequate appellate review as those who can pay, though it left it to Illinois to choose the specific method — a free transcript, a substitute narrative record, or some other mechanism — for achieving that equality.
Doctrinal impact
Cases affected by this decision
Reaffirms McKane v. Durston (153 U.S. 684)
The Court relies on this case's rule that states need not provide any criminal appeal at all under the Constitution.