United States v. MacCollom
48 L. Ed. 2d 666, 1976 U.S. LEXIS 58, 426 U.S. 317 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Fifth Amendment does not require the federal government to provide an indigent prisoner with a free trial transcript to prepare a collateral attack on their conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 without a prior showing that the claim is not frivolous and that the transcript is necessary to decide the issue presented.
Facts:
- Respondent MacCollom was convicted of uttering forged currency after a jury trial.
- He was sentenced to 10 years in prison.
- MacCollom did not file a direct appeal of his conviction or sentence.
- Nearly two years after his conviction, MacCollom, acting on his own, sought a copy of his trial transcript to prepare a motion to vacate his sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
- He alleged he was indigent and could not afford a transcript.
- MacCollom asserted, without providing specific factual details, that a transcript would show he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that there was insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict.
Procedural Posture:
- MacCollom filed a 'Motion for Transcript in Forma Pauperis' in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington.
- The District Court treated MacCollom's subsequent filing as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, granted him leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and appointed counsel.
- After a hearing, the District Court dismissed the motion for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
- MacCollom (appellant) appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
- A divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that MacCollom was entitled to a free transcript to help him prepare his § 2255 motion.
- The United States (petitioner) appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States.
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 28 U.S.C. § 753(f), which conditions the provision of a free trial transcript to an indigent prisoner for a § 2255 collateral attack upon a judicial finding that the claim is not frivolous and the transcript is needed, violate the Due Process and equal protection components of the Fifth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Rehnquist
No. The conditions imposed by 28 U.S.C. § 753(f) on obtaining a free trial transcript for a § 2255 proceeding are constitutional. The Due Process Clause does not establish a right to collaterally attack a final judgment, and MacCollom forwent his statutory right to a direct appeal where a transcript would have been provided for free. The equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment does not guarantee absolute equality but requires an adequate opportunity to present one's claims fairly. MacCollom had this opportunity on direct appeal. At the later collateral-relief stage, it is constitutionally sufficient for Congress to require a prisoner to demonstrate to a judge that their claim is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed, which puts the indigent in a position analogous to a person of limited means who must also weigh the potential merits of a claim before spending funds on a transcript.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
No. The statute is constitutional because the respondent has a current and adequate opportunity to present his claims fairly. The statute only requires a prisoner to make a non-frivolous showing, based on some articulable facts, that the transcript would be of assistance. The Constitution does not mandate that the government provide an indigent with every possible legal tool, especially one of speculative value, merely because a wealthy person could afford it. The path was open for the respondent to present his claim fairly within the bounds of § 753(f).
Dissenting - Justice Brennan
Yes. The statutory conditions violate the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. The principles established in Griffin v. Illinois, requiring equal access for indigents to the instruments of justice, apply to collateral proceedings. It is a Catch-22 to require a prisoner to substantiate a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel before providing the very transcript needed to find that substantiation. The fact that the respondent forwent a direct appeal is constitutionally irrelevant; equal protection applies at every stage of the process where a conviction's validity is at issue.
Dissenting - Justice Stevens
Yes. The Court should interpret § 753(f) to make transcripts available almost automatically in § 2255 proceedings to ensure the fair and evenhanded administration of justice. A prisoner, especially one alleging ineffective assistance of counsel, often cannot articulate specific factual grounds for their claim without the transcript. A more liberal provision of transcripts would improve efficiency, reduce delays, and, most importantly, minimize the danger that an indigent's rights are lost due to the ineptitude of appointed counsel. This interpretation would also avoid the constitutional question.
Analysis:
This decision distinguishes the constitutional rights afforded to indigents on a first appeal as of right from those available in subsequent collateral attacks. Following the logic of Ross v. Moffitt, the Court held that while the state cannot impose financial barriers to accessing a judicial process, it may place reasonable, non-discriminatory conditions on the provision of ancillary services in discretionary or collateral proceedings. The ruling solidifies the principle that equal protection requires an 'adequate opportunity' to present claims, not the state-funded duplication of every tool a wealthy defendant might purchase. This places a burden on indigent prisoners in collateral proceedings to make a preliminary, non-frivolous showing of merit before gaining access to state-funded resources like trial transcripts.
