United States v. MacCollom

In United States v. MacCollom (1976) 426 U.S. 317, the United States Supreme Court upheld a federal statute which provides before an indigent person will be afforded a free transcript to be used in a collateral attack of a final judgment of conviction under 28 United States Code section 2255, the "'trial judge or a circuit judge'" must certify "'that the suit or appeal is not frivolous and that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented by the suit or appeal. . . . '" ( Id. , at p. 320.) Although the court recognized the statutory conditions under consideration (28 U.S.C. 753(f), 2255) placed an indigent in a "somewhat less advantageous position than a person of means," the court stated that the statutory conditions did not deny an indigent of equal protection of the laws. ( Id. , at p. 324.) " Neither the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, nor the counterpart equal protection requirement embodied in the Fifth Amendment, guarantees 'absolute equality or precisely equal advantages,' . In the context of a criminal proceeding they require only 'an adequate opportunity to present one's claims fairly . . . . '" ( Id. , at p. 324.) The court noted that respondent in MacCollom would have been afforded a free transcript had he pursued a direct appeal, but that he stood in a "different position" since he was seeking collateral relief. ( Id. , at pp. 324-325.) The court in MacCollom , in holding the statutory scheme was constitutional stated: "We think that the formula devised by Congress satisfies the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment. Respondent chose to forego his opportunity for direct appeal with its attendant unconditional free transcript. This choice affects his later equal protection claim as well as his due process claim. Equal protection does not require the Government to furnish to the indigent a delayed duplicate of a right of appeal with attendant free transcript which it offered in the first instance, even though a criminal defendant of means might well decide to purchase such a transcript in pursuit of relief under 2255. The basic question is one of adequacy of respondent's access to procedures for review of his conviction . . . and it must be decided in the light of avenues which respondent chose not to follow as well as those he now seeks to widen. We think it enough at the collateral-relief stage that Congress has provided that the transcript be paid for by public funds if one demonstrates to a district judge that his 2255 claim is not frivolous, and that the transcript is needed to decide the issue presented." ( Id. , at pp. 325-326.)