JOHNSON
v.
UNITED STATES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Supreme Court held that a defendant challenging a district court's certification that an appeal is not taken in good faith has a constitutional right to assistance of counsel and must be provided with adequate means—such as trial notes or an agreed statement—to demonstrate that the appeal has merit and was pursued in good faith. The Court vacated the lower court's judgment and remanded the case because the Court of Appeals failed to assign counsel and did not ensure the defendant had sufficient tools to challenge the certification.
© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, as is leave to proceed in forma pauperis.
By the Act of June 25, 1910, 86 Stat. 866, as now enlarged in 28 U.
S. C. § 1915, Congress provided for proceedings in forma pauperis on appeal unless “the trial court certifies in writing that it [the appeal] is not taken in good faith.” Such certification is not final in the sense that the convicted defendant is barred from showing that it was unwarranted and that an appeal should be allowed. Of course, certification by the judge presiding at the trial carries great weight but, necessarily, it cannot be conclusive. Upon a proper showing a Court of Appeals has a duty to displace a District Court’s certification.
Moreover, a Court of Appeals must, under Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, afford one who challenges that certification the aid of counsel unless he insists on being his own.
Finally, either the defendant or his assigned counsel must be enabled to show that the grounds for seeking an appeal from the judgment of conviction are not frivolous and do not justify the finding that the appeal is not sought in good faith. This does not require that in every such case the United States must furnish the defendant with a stenographic transcript of the trial. It is essential, however, that he be assured some appropriate means — such as the district judge’s notes or an agreed statement by trial counsel — of making manifest the basis of his claim that the District Court committed error in certifying that the desired appeal was not pursued in good faith. See Miller v. United States, 317 U. S. 192, 198.
Since here the Court of Appeals did not assign counsel to assist petitioner in prosecuting his application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and since it does not appear that the Court of Appeals assured petitioner adequate means of presenting it with a fair basis for determining whether the District Court’s certification was warranted, the judgment below must be vacated and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (99 total)
-
Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (U.S. 1967)…without merit, is forced to shift Lrr himself.” At 358. Indeed, in the federal courts, the advice of counsel has long been required whenever a defendant challenges a certification that an appeal is not taken in good faith, Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565 (1957), and such representation must be in the role of an advocate, Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674, 675 (1958), rather than as amicus curiae. In Ellis, supra, we concluded: “If c®unsel- is convinced, after conscientious investigation, that t…
-
Douglas v. California, 372 U.S. 353 (U.S. 1963)…ght to appeal does not comport with fair procedure. In the federal courts, on the other hand, an indigent must be afforded counsel on appeal whenever he challenges a certification that the appeal is not taken in good faith. Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565. The federal courts must honor his request for counsel regardless of what they think the merits of the case may be; and “representation in the role of an advocate is required.” Ellis v. United States, 356 U. S. 674, 675.2 In California, however, onc…
-
Coppedge v. United States, 369 U.S. 438 (U.S. 1962)…urden of showing that the right to appeal has been abused is on the party making the suggestion. It has been said that a District Court’s certification that an appeal is not taken in good faith is entitled to great weight. Johnson v. United States, 352 U. S. 565, 566. Nevertheless, if a District Court has denied leave to appeal in forma pauperis, the Court of Appeals has the ultimate responsibility of deciding for itself whether the appeal is frivolous. Justice demands an independent and objective assessme…1 / 5
Previewing 3 of 99 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1938)
- Miller v. United States, 317 U.S. 192 (U.S. 1942)