Draper v. Washington

1963-03-18

Headline: Ruling limits state power to deny free trial transcripts to poor defendants and requires a sufficiently complete record so indigent appellants receive appellate review equivalent to paying defendants.

Holding: The Court held that Washington’s practice of denying indigent defendants a sufficiently complete appellate record based solely on a trial judge’s finding of frivolity violated the Fourteenth Amendment and required correction.

Real World Impact:

Requires states to give poor defendants a sufficiently complete appellate record.
Prevents trial judges’ conclusory finding from blocking indigent appeals.
Allows narrative or partial records when truly equivalent to a transcript.

Topics: indigent appeals, free trial transcripts, appellate review, criminal procedure

Summary

Background

Three indigent men convicted after a three-day jury trial of two robberies were sentenced to consecutive twenty-year terms. They asked the trial judge to prepare a free stenographic transcript so they could appeal. Under Washington rules adopted after earlier cases, a judge could deny a free transcript if he found the appeal frivolous or if a partial or narrative record seemed adequate. The judge denied the requests with conclusory findings, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed without a trial transcript.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether that practice denied the defendants rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Relying on earlier decisions, the Court said the State must give indigent appellants an appellate record as adequate as that available to defendants who can pay. While a full transcript is not always required, substitutes must be truly equivalent. Here the materials before the state court were not a "record of sufficient completeness," so the judge’s finding of frivolity could not replace an adequate record.

Real world impact

The decision requires Washington and similarly situated states to provide poor defendants with a complete enough record—whether a full transcript, a narrative, or relevant portions—so appellate courts can fairly review claimed errors. It prevents a trial judge’s conclusory finding from being the sole bar to appeal and preserves meaningful appellate review for indigent defendants.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice White dissented, joined by three Justices, arguing the materials the state courts used constituted an adequate narrative and that the State should retain flexibility to avoid undue expense. He would have affirmed the state court’s decision.