## Facts

- Jack L. Mayer, an indigent defendant, was convicted by a jury in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, of two Chicago ordinance violations: disorderly conduct and interference with a police officer.
- The court imposed two $250 fines; each ordinance carried a maximum $500 penalty.
- Mayer sought appellate review, asserting insufficiency of the evidence and prosecutorial misconduct that allegedly denied a fair trial.
- He requested a free trial transcript; the trial court found him indigent but denied the request because Illinois Supreme Court Rule 607 provided transcripts only for felony convictions.
- Illinois rules also allowed non-transcript substitutes (a settled statement or an agreed statement of facts), but Mayer did not use them.
- The Illinois Supreme Court denied Mayer’s request for a free transcript in an unreported order.
- Mayer appealed, challenging the constitutionality of restricting free transcripts to felony cases and of denying a transcript where the punishment was fines only.

## Issues

1. Whether a State that provides appellate review may deny an indigent defendant a free trial transcript solely because the conviction is for a nonfelony ordinance offense, when transcripts are provided for felonies.
2. Whether the absence of possible imprisonment (fine-only penalties) permits a State to deny indigent defendants the record needed for meaningful appellate review.
3. Whether, when an indigent shows a colorable need for a complete transcript, the State must demonstrate that a partial transcript or an alternative record is sufficient.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court vacated the Illinois Supreme Court’s denial and remanded for proceedings consistent with its opinion.
- The Court held that, once a State affords appellate review, it must provide an indigent defendant a “record of sufficient completeness” to allow proper consideration of the appellate claims.
- The Constitution does not invariably require a full verbatim transcript; alternatives are permissible if they provide an effectively equivalent basis for review.
- Because Mayer’s claims (insufficient evidence and prosecutorial misconduct) showed a colorable need for a complete transcript, the burden shifted to the State to show that a partial transcript or substitute record would permit effective review.
- Limiting free transcripts to felonies was an unreasoned distinction that violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and equal protection requirements.
- The Court rejected the argument that fine-only penalties reduce the constitutional requirement; discrimination in access to appellate review remains impermissible even without imprisonment.

## Legal Principles

- When a State provides appellate review in criminal cases, it must ensure indigent defendants have access to review that is not denied in practice by inability to pay for a record.
- The State must furnish a “record of sufficient completeness” to permit meaningful appellate consideration of the issues raised.
- A verbatim transcript is not always constitutionally required; adequate substitutes may be used if they allow effective review.
- If an indigent defendant demonstrates a colorable need for a full transcript on the issues to be appealed, the State bears the burden to show that a lesser record or alternative device is sufficient.
- The Fourteenth Amendment forbids felony/nonfelony and fine/imprisonment classifications that deny indigent defendants the tools necessary for effective appellate review.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that a State offering appellate review may not restrict free transcripts to felony cases or deny transcript-based review because punishment is only a fine; indigent defendants must receive a sufficiently complete record, and when their claims show a colorable need for a full transcript, the State must justify any substitute as adequate for effective appeal.


Mayer v. City of Chicago, 404 U.S. 189 (1971)