Britt v. North Carolina
1971 U.S. LEXIS 7, 30 L. Ed. 2d 400, 404 U.S. 226 (1971)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Equal Protection Clause, a state must provide an indigent defendant with a transcript of prior proceedings when needed for an effective defense, but this right is not violated if the defendant has access to an alternative that is substantially equivalent to a transcript.
Facts:
- Petitioner Britt was tried for murder.
- The trial resulted in a mistrial due to a deadlocked jury.
- A retrial was scheduled to occur one month later.
- Britt was an indigent defendant.
- The second trial was set to take place before the same judge, with the same defense counsel, and the same court reporter as the first trial.
- The trial took place in a small town where the court reporter was a good friend of the local lawyers, including Britt's counsel.
- It was established that the court reporter would have read back the notes from the mistrial to defense counsel at any time upon an informal request before the second trial.
Procedural Posture:
- Petitioner Britt's first murder trial in a North Carolina trial court ended in a mistrial.
- Prior to the retrial, Britt, an indigent, filed a motion in the trial court requesting a free transcript of the first trial.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- Britt appealed the denial to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
- The North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The North Carolina Supreme Court, the state's highest court, denied certiorari.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the North Carolina Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Equal Protection Clause require a state to provide an indigent defendant with a free transcript of a prior mistrial when an available informal alternative, such as the court reporter's willingness to read back trial notes, is substantially equivalent to a formal transcript?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Marshall
No. In the narrow circumstances of this case, the state's refusal to provide a free transcript did not violate the Equal Protection Clause because the petitioner had an available alternative that was substantially equivalent to a transcript. The principle of Griffin v. Illinois requires states to provide indigent defendants with the basic tools of an adequate defense, which includes a transcript when needed. The Court determines need by evaluating the transcript's value and the availability of adequate alternatives. While the value of a mistrial transcript is generally assumed for discovery and impeachment purposes without a particularized showing of need, this case turns on the second factor. Memory or limited access to the reporter during trial are not adequate substitutes. Here, however, it emerged that due to the small-town setting and the friendly relationship between counsel and the court reporter, the reporter would have read back the notes of the mistrial at any time upon informal request. Since the petitioner conceded this informal alternative was available and it was deemed substantially equivalent to a transcript, his constitutional claim fails.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Douglas
Yes. The state's refusal to provide a free transcript violates the Equal Protection Clause because a poor defendant's constitutional rights should not depend on fortuitous circumstances. The dissent argues that under the principles of Griffin v. Illinois and Roberts v. LaVallee, an indigent defendant has a right to a transcript of prior proceedings without showing a particularized need, and a mistrial transcript is even more valuable than a preliminary hearing transcript as it is a 'virtual dry run' of the prosecution's case. The suggested alternative of having the court reporter read back notes is not a constitutionally adequate substitute for a physical transcript, which is crucial for effective trial preparation and impeachment. The majority's reliance on the 'fortuity' that the reporter was a friend of counsel in a small town makes a constitutional right contingent on chance personal relationships, which undermines the principle of equal justice for all regardless of wealth.
Analysis:
This decision refines the rule from Griffin v. Illinois by establishing that the state's duty to provide the 'basic tools of an adequate defense' is not absolute. While affirming the presumptive value of a trial transcript, the Court created a 'substantially equivalent alternative' exception. This shifts the analysis in future cases from whether a transcript is needed to a fact-intensive inquiry into whether available alternatives are adequate. The ruling gives states more flexibility in fulfilling their constitutional obligations but potentially weakens the guarantee of equal resources for indigent defendants by allowing for informal, and possibly less reliable, substitutes for official transcripts.
