Hardy v. United States

Background

A poor defendant was convicted and sentenced to prison. His trial lawyer withdrew and a different court-appointed lawyer was named after the defendant filed a pro se request to appeal without paying. The District Court denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis, and the Court of Appeals ordered only parts of the trial transcript — mainly the government’s testimony — at public expense. The defendant sought the rest of the transcript, and the Court of Appeals denied that request by a divided vote. The case came to the Supreme Court on certiorari.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether an appellate lawyer who did not represent the defendant at trial can do his job without seeing the whole trial record. The majority said no: an appointed appellate lawyer must act as an advocate and needs the complete trial transcript — testimony for the defendant and prosecution and the judge’s charge to the jury — to look for errors the trial judge missed, including plain errors. The opinion relied on existing statutes and prior decisions about appeals and in- forma-pauperis procedures and reversed the lower court’s limited-transcript ruling.

Real world impact

The ruling makes it easier for appointed appellate lawyers who enter a case after trial to investigate and present arguable claims of error on behalf of indigent clients. It may raise the government’s cost for transcripts in some cases, but the Court and a concurrence said fuller transcripts could reduce delay and improve the fairness of appellate screening for poor defendants.

Dissents or concurrances

A concurring opinion urged that full transcripts be provided to all indigent defendants seeking appeals; a separate concurrence agreed with the result; a dissent warned against creating nationwide rules by judicial supervisory power and urged congressional action instead.