|
|
May v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
May v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971)
May v. City of Chicago No. 70-5040 Argued October 14, 1971 Decided December 13, 1971 404 U.S. 189
APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF ILLINOIS
Syllabus
Appellant was convicted on nonfelony charges of violating two city of Chicago ordinances and was sentenced to pay a fine of $250 on each offense. Desiring to appeal, he petitioned the trial court for a free trial transcript to support his appeal on the grounds of insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct. Although the court found that he was indigent, it denied his application on the basis of an Illinois Supreme Court rule which provided for trial transcripts only in felony cases. Other rules provided alternatives to a transcript in the form of a "Settled Statement" or an "Agreed Statement of Facts." Without resorting to either alternative, appellant moved for a free transcript in the State Supreme Court. The motion was denied.
Held:
1. Although the State must afford the indigent defendant a trial "`record of sufficient completeness’ to permit proper consideration of [his] claims," Draper v. Washington, 372 U.S. 487, 499, it need not necessarily furnish a complete verbatim transcript, but may provide alternatives that accord effective appellate review. Pp. 193-195.
2. When the defendant’s grounds for appeal, as here, make out a colorable need for a complete transcript, the State has the burden of showing that only a portion thereof or an "alternative" will suffice for an effective appeal on those grounds. P. 195.
3. The distinction drawn by the State Supreme Court rule between felony and nonfelony offenses is an "unreasoned distinction" proscribed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 195-196.
4. The fact that the charges on which the appellant was convicted were punishable by a fine, rather than by confinement, does not lessen the invidious discrimination against an indigent defendant. Pp. 196-198.
Vacated and remanded.
BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. BURGER C.J., post, p. 199, and BLACKMUN, J., post, p. 201, filed concurring opinions.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," May v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971) in 404 U.S. 189 404 U.S. 190. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4ZYY7EVFUYNEMWU.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." May v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971), in 404 U.S. 189, page 404 U.S. 190. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4ZYY7EVFUYNEMWU.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in May v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971). cited in 1971, 404 U.S. 189, pp.404 U.S. 190. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=4ZYY7EVFUYNEMWU.
|