Miller v. United States
| Decision Date | 07 December 1942 |
| Docket Number | No. 76,76 |
| Citation | 87 L.Ed. 179,317 U.S. 601,63 S.Ct. 187,317 U.S. 192 |
| Parties | MILLER v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 317 U.S. 713, 63 S.Ct. 438, 87 L.Ed. —-.
Mr. Howard C. Westwood, of Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Mr. Archibald Cox, of Washington, D.C., for respondent.
This case presents important questions in respect of criminal proceedings against poor persons in federal courts. For this reason we granted certiorari.
The petitioner was indicted, tried, and convicted in the United States District Court for Western Arkansas for kidnapping in violation of Title 18 U.S. Code § 408a, 18 U.S.C.A. § 408a. As he was without funds to conduct his defense, the court appointed counsel for him. The person charged to have been kidnapped was the illegitimate daughter of petitioner's wife.
Two defenses were presented. The first was that the petitioner came within the exception stated in the statute, that it shall not apply to a kidnapping 'in the case of a minor, by a parent thereof'. To sustain this defense petitioner offered evidence to prove that the girl was a minor and that, having married her mother, he stood in the relation of a parent to her. The second defense was that the petitioner had neither taken nor detained the young woman against her will. The District Judge ruled against the petitioner's contention that he was a parent within the intendment of the statute, but sent the case to the jury on the question whether he had apprehended or detained his wife's daughter against her will. The jury rendered a verdict of guilty. Judgment of sentence was entered.
In due time petitioner's counsel filed notice of appeal in which, amongst others, reasons advanced were that the court erred in refusing peremptory instructions for acquittal at the conclusion of the Government's case and at the conclusion of all the evidence; that the verdict of the jury was contrary to the weight of the evidence, and that the court erred in refusing to instruct the jury that if they found the complaining witness was under the age of eighteen years at the time of the kidnapping they must find the petitioner not guilty.
The District Court entered an order permitting the petitioner to appeal in forma pauperis and the Circuit Court of Appeals also permitted the prosecution of the proceedings in that court in forma pauperis.
In connection with the appeal, errors were specifically assigned to the ruling of the District Court respecting the status of the petitioner as a parent, but no error was so assigned to the action of the court in submitting the fact questions respecting the alleged apprehension and detention of the complaining witness, although the assignments of error concluded with a prayer for a reversal for 'other manifest errors in the record and proceedings'. The Bill of Exceptions allowed by the District Court set forth only so much of the proceedings as went to the question of petitioner's asserted parenthood of the alleged minor. It also included the proceedings on motions for directed verdict and the action of the court upon those motions but none of the evidence on which the motions were based.
The Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment and, in so doing, dealt only with the question of the petitioner's parenthood.1 At the close of its opinion it stated: 'No other question having been raised on this appeal, it follows that the judgment must be and is affirmed.'
The petitioner entered upon service of his sentence and, being without counsel, personally forwarded to the Circuit Court of Appeals a petition for the appointment of counsel and a petition for rehearing. In the latter he urged that there was no testimony in the record indicating that he took or detained his wife's daughter against her will, and prayed that the Circuit Court of Appeals issue a writ of certiorari to bring up a complete transcript of the testimony taken at his trial. In a per curiam opinion,2 the court stated that it had decided the only question before it, but ordered that the United States Attorney answer the petition so that it might be ascertained whether a Bill of Exceptions could be prepared to raise the questions which the petitioner desired to have decided. The prosecuting officer answered alleging that the entire testimony in the case had been taken stenographically by the district judge's secretary, whose notes were available and could be transcribed. The answer further set forth that the judge's secretary had important duties to perform; that the testimony which he took stenographically was of large volume; that its transcription would involve labor for which he ought to be paid; and that the Government could not be required to pay for a transcript of the evidence or to furnish such a transcript to the defendant.
To this answer the petitioner filed a response in which, amongst other things, he alleged that he had repeatedly urged his attorney to present to the Circuit Court of Appeals the question of the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction and that his attorney had invariably replied that this could not be done without obtaining a transcript of the evidence so as to make a proper Bill of Exceptions covering the subject; that the attorney further advised him that a transcript of the testimony could not be procured because the petitioner had no funds to pay for its preparation. It stands admitted on the record that these are the facts.
The Circuit Court of Appeals, in a third opinion,3 stated that it had requested a response to the petition for rehearing in order to ascertain whether the Government, as in Holmes v. United States, 314 U.S. 583, 62 S.Ct. 357, 86 L.Ed. 472, would consent to the vacation of the judgment so that a proper record might be made as the basis for consideration of the question urged by the petitioner. The court stated that, in view of the Government's opposition to a vacation of the judgment or a reopening of the case, it felt itself without power to act further in the matter and indicated that if the petitioner desired to bring the cause to this court such facilities should be furnished him as were necessary to that end without the obligation to pay fees or costs.
The petitioner presented to this Court a petition for certiorari and a petition for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. We granted the writ and gave leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 316 U.S. 658, 62 S.Ct. 1307, 86 L.Ed. 1736. As he was without counsel we appointed counsel to act for him in this Court. 63 S.Ct. 70, 87 L.Ed. —-.
1. There is no law of the United States creating the position of official court stenographer and none requiring the stenographic report of any case, civil or criminal, and there is none providing for payment for the services of a stenographer in reporting judicial proceedings. The practice has been for the parties to agree that a designated person shall so report. The one selected must be paid by private arrangement with one or more of the parties to the litigation. The amount paid to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Griffin v. People of the State of Illinois
...Holdom, 1901, 193 Ill. 319, 61 N.E. 1014; People v. Joyce, 1953, 1 Ill.2d 225, 230, 115 N.E.2d 262, 264—265; Miller v. United States, 1942, 317 U.S. 192, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. 179; Note, 15 Ann.Cas. 737. 18 Ill.Rev.Stat., 1955, c. 110, § 2; Ill.Rev.Stat., 1955, c. 110, § 101.65 (Supreme Co......
-
Tate v. United States
...Griffin v. People of State of Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 20, 76 S.Ct. 585, 100 L.Ed. 891 (1956); cf. Miller v. United States, 317 U.S. 192, 198-199, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. 179 (1942). We need not consider, however, whether or how General Sessions could make do with a substitute for transcripts ......
-
United States v. Savage
...M. T. Ratteray, Verbatim Reporting Comes of Age , 56 Judicature 368, 368–69, 373 (1973); see also Miller v. United States , 317 U.S. 192, 198–99, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. 179 (1942).8 We decline to graft what is a relatively modern development onto the Due Process Clause or any other constitu......
-
Boyden v. Commissioner of Patents
...divorce, and in Griffin the court had recognized a constitutional requirement which must be met. 7 Cf. Miller v. United States, 317 U.S. 192, 198, 63 S.Ct. 187, 87 L.Ed. 179 (1942); Douglas v. Green, 327 F.2d 661 (6 Cir. 1964); In re Fullam, 80 U.S. App.D.C. 273, 152 F.2d 141 (1945). And fu......