Lane v. Brown

Background

George Robert Brown is an indigent man in an Indiana prison under sentence of death. After his murder conviction was affirmed and this Court denied certiorari, Brown sought a postconviction writ of error coram nobis. The Public Defender represented him at that hearing, but the trial court denied relief. Indiana law and court rules required a transcript to appeal a coram nobis denial and, as interpreted by the Indiana Supreme Court, allowed only the Public Defender’s office to procure such a transcript for an indigent. The Public Defender refused to appeal, and state courts denied Brown a transcript or appointment of other counsel.

Reasoning

The federal courts asked whether Indiana’s practice—letting a state officer outside the judiciary decide whether an indigent can have a transcript and thus an appeal—violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that it did. Citing earlier decisions requiring equal appellate review for poor defendants, the Court concluded that a system that cuts off an indigent’s appeal solely because of poverty fails constitutional standards. The Court therefore vacated the lower courts’ judgments and remanded with instructions ordering discharge unless Indiana provides Brown an appellate review on the merits to the Indiana Supreme Court within a reasonable time.

Real world impact

The decision bars states from conditioning access to appellate review for indigent prisoners on their ability to pay for transcripts or on unreviewable discretion of a public defender. Indiana was given the opportunity to provide the required appeal; if it does not, Brown must be discharged. The ruling does not decide Brown’s guilt or innocence, only that he must be allowed the promised appellate process.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan, joined by Justice Clark, agreed the procedure fell short but would require a judicial review of the Public Defender’s decision and would direct discharge only if the State fails to provide that review.