Schreiner v. United States
Headline: Court grants fee waiver and review, vacates the appeals court’s judgment, and remands for reconsideration while urging consideration of appointing counsel to help an indigent defendant seek Supreme Court review.
Holding:
- Requires appeals courts to consider appointing counsel to help indigent defendants seek Supreme Court review.
- Allows an indigent person to proceed without fees when seeking this Court’s review.
- Reminds lower courts to re-enter judgments and take further procedural steps on remand.
Summary
Background
An indigent criminal defendant asked the Court to proceed without fees and sought review of his conviction. The Court granted the fee waiver and the petition for review, vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. The remand directed the appeals court to re-enter its judgment affirming the conviction and to consider appointing counsel to help the defendant seek review in this Court. The opinion cites the Criminal Justice Act and Rule 44(a).
Reasoning
The Court relied on federal statutory provisions and committee reports that address appointment of counsel for indigent criminal defendants on appeal. The per curiam order did not elaborate lengthy analysis but directed the lower court to consider the appointment of counsel in connection with seeking review. Justice Douglas, in a concurring statement, emphasized that the statutory right includes assistance in drafting a petition for review and is not conditioned on a lawyer’s view of the petition’s merits.
Real world impact
The decision requires the Court of Appeals to reconsider its handling of the case and to think about appointing a lawyer to assist an indigent person seeking to file for this Court’s review. That may increase access to counsel at the stage of seeking Supreme Court review for indigent defendants. The order is procedural and remands the case for further action, so it does not decide the underlying guilt or innocence of the defendant.
Dissents or concurrances
Justice Douglas concurred, stressing that appointed counsel should assist in filing certiorari petitions when requested and should not condition that assistance on whether counsel thinks the Supreme Court will grant review.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?