Miller v. United States (317 U.S. 192)

CERTIORARI TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT.

 The in forma pauperis statute (Act of July 20, 1892, as amended) does not entitle an indigent defendant in a criminal case to be furnished a verbatim transcript of the evidence at public expense. P. 197. 

A verbatim transcript of all the evidence is not necessary for the preparation of a bill of exceptions; the bill may be prepared from the judge's or counsel's notes, or from the recollection of witnesses as to what occurred at the trial, or, in short, from any and all sources which will contribute to a veracious account of the trial judge's action and the basis of his ruling. P. 198. 

Upon a petition to the Circuit Court of Appeals for rehearing of its affirmance, on an appeal in forma pauperis, of a conviction in a criminal case, it appeared that the petitioner's contention that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the verdict had not been properly presented because of his counsel's belief that a transcript of the evidence (which the petitioner was without funds to obtain) was necessary for the preparation of a bill of exceptions covering the point. Held, that, in the circumstances, the Circuit Court of Appeals had power, under Rule 4 of the Criminal Appeals Rules, to remand the cause to the District Court for the settlement of a proper bill of exceptions. P. 199. 

The cause is remanded to the Circuit Court of Appeals for entry of an order permitting settlement in the District Court of a bill of exceptions presenting the point urged by the petitioner. Thereupon, it will be the duty of counsel for the petitioner to submit a bill of exceptions made up from the best sources available; and it will then be the duty of the district judge to assist in amplifying, correcting and perfecting the bill, and to settle the same in order to present the evidence given at the trial. P. 199.  

123 F.2d 715, reversed.

CERTIORARI, 316 U.S. 658, to review the affirmance of a conviction of kidnapping in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 408a. For other opinions of the court below in this case, see 124 F.2d 849, 126 F.2d 462.

Mr. Howard C. Westwood, with whom Mr. Charles M. Davison, Jr. was on the brief, for petitioner.

Mr. Archibald Cox, with whom Solicitor General Fahy, Assistant Attorney General Berge, and Mr. Robert S. Erdahl were on the brief, for the United States.

MR. JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.