“On balance, we conclude that a harmless error analysis would not be appropriate in this case . . . . [W]e note that it would be an unjustifiable waste of appellate resources to require an exhaustive comparison of trial transcripts in every case in which a transcript has been denied.”
How later courts described this case
- “On balance, we conclude that a harmless error analysis would not be appropriate in this case . . . . [W]e note that it would be an unjustifiable waste of appellate resources to require an exhaustive comparison of trial transcripts in every case in which a transcript has been denied.”
- “a court must assume that a transcript of a prior mistrial is valuable to the defense.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
CLARK, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I concur in Judge Smith’s opinion for the court. I write only to express my preference for an analysis which would be directly based on the constitutional value involved — equal protection. The indigent defendant is entitled to a transcript anytime a person with financial means would obtain one. Considerations of cost to the government do not control, nor can denial of the request be predicated on lack of need or necessity. The clear implication of such a process of analysis in the mistrial/retrial situation is that almost every request should be granted. This is what the case law of the Supreme Court and this court bear out. It is difficult to conceive of a situation in which a litigant with means would not want an exact reproduction of the prior proceeding to aid in tracking prior testimony and procedural developments in preparation for and during the retrial.