Coppedge v. United States

Supreme Court of United States
369 U.S. 438 (1962)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

An indigent defendant's request to appeal a criminal conviction in forma pauperis must be granted if it presents any issue that is not frivolous. The burden is on the government to demonstrate that the appeal is frivolous, not on the defendant to show that the appeal has merit.

Facts:

In early December 1957, Petitioner allegedly committed an offense against the United States.
Petitioner was indigent and could not afford the costs associated with a legal appeal, such as court fees and the preparation of a stenographic transcript.
After being convicted of the offense, Petitioner wished to seek appellate review of the judgment.
Petitioner sought to raise several issues on appeal, including a claim that the indictment against him was procured through perjured testimony before the grand jury and that he was improperly denied access to the grand jury minutes to prove this claim.

Procedural Posture:

Petitioner was convicted of a federal offense in a U.S. District Court.
Petitioner applied to the District Court for leave to appeal his conviction in forma pauperis.
The District Court denied the application, certifying in writing that the appeal was not taken in 'good faith.'
Petitioner then filed an application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis with the U.S. Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals appointed counsel for petitioner, ordered a trial transcript at government expense, and received memoranda from both parties.
The Court of Appeals, with one judge dissenting, denied the petition for leave to appeal.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari to determine the correct standard for such applications.

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 'good faith' requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) for granting a criminal appeal in forma pauperis require an indigent defendant to show their appeal has merit, or is the requirement met so long as the appeal presents any non-frivolous issue?

Opinions:

Majority - Mr. Chief Justice Warren

No. The 'good faith' requirement for an appeal in forma pauperis is met as long as the appeal presents any non-frivolous issue. The court defines 'good faith' under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 by an objective, not subjective, standard. An appeal is taken in good faith when it seeks review of any issue that is not frivolous. This standard is equivalent to the one used for dismissing a paid appeal; unless the issues are so frivolous that a nonindigent's appeal would be dismissed, the indigent's request must be allowed. This approach ensures equality of consideration for all litigants. Consequently, the burden is not on the petitioner to prove their appeal has merit, but on the government to demonstrate that the appeal is so lacking in merit that it should be dismissed.

Concurring - Mr. Justice Stewart

No. The standard is simply whether the issues are so frivolous that a paid appeal would be dismissed. The provisions for in forma pauperis appeals are a screening device to prevent abuse, not a mechanism to dilute the fundamental right to an appeal. The Court of Appeals has the ultimate responsibility to determine frivolity, and it cannot convert the preliminary 'good faith' proceeding into a truncated substitute for a full appeal on the merits. To ensure speedy justice and avoid procedural delays, courts should consider granting such appeals as a matter of course, allowing the government to file a motion to dismiss for frivolity, just as it would in a paid case.

Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark

Yes. The majority's holding improperly shifts the burden to the government and effectively repeals the statute allowing a trial court to certify that an appeal is not taken in good faith. A trial court's certification of frivolity should be given 'great weight,' and the burden should remain on the indigent petitioner to show that the certificate is unwarranted. There is no constitutional issue, as Congress can validly create a screening procedure for free appeals to protect public funds from being wasted on frivolous litigation. The Court of Appeals already conducted a thorough review based on a complete transcript and extensive briefs, and remanding the case for oral argument is a wasteful formality that only contributes to further delay.

Analysis:

This case is significant for establishing the 'non-frivolous' standard for in forma pauperis appeals, thereby lowering the barrier for indigent criminal defendants to access appellate courts. By explicitly shifting the burden of proof to the government to show an appeal is frivolous, the decision reinforces the principle of equal justice and ensures that poverty does not preclude meaningful appellate review. The ruling prevents lower courts from denying appeals based on a preliminary assessment of the ultimate merits and mandates that any arguable issue receives the same consideration, including briefs and oral argument, afforded to paid appeals.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Coppedge v. United States (1962)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature