IN THE FIFTIETH JUDICIAL DISTRICT, PARISH OF PEINE DE MORT
STATE OF LOUISIANA
No. _____

=================================

STATE OF LOUISIANA, Plaintiff
v.
JOHN CLIENT, Defendant

=================================

MOTION FOR LIMITED DAILY TRANSCRIPTS

COMES NOW, JOHN CLIENT, by counsel, and moves this Court pursuant to the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and Article 1, Sections 2, 3, 5, 13, 14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 22, and 24 of the Louisiana Constitution to order that provision be made for such limited daily transcripts as may be required in this case. In support of his motion, Mr. CLIENT states as follows:
1. This is a capital case. Mr. CLIENT, an indigent, faces the death penalty.
2. Destitute defendants must be afforded access to transcripts in the same manner "as defendants who have money enough to buy transcripts." Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U.S. 12, 19, 76 S. Ct. 585, 100 L. Ed. 891 (1956). In many federal cases where life is not at stake, daily transcripts are ordered of the entire testimony.
3. It is uncontroverted that, were Mr. CLIENT not indigent, he would make arrangements to secure daily transcripts of such portions of the record as might prove important to saving his life. Where a rich defendant would want such a transcript, a poor person should also be allowed a daily transcript. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 235 n.6 (1971) (opinion of Douglas, J.).
4. More recently, it has been held to be "an abuse of discretion to decline to order [daily] transcripts...." United States v. Bari, 750 F.2d 1169, 1182 (2d Cir. 1984).
5. Mr. CLIENT does not ask that this Court order the provision of a transcript of all the case as it progresses. Rather, there will be specific areas in which such a transcript will be of critical significance. For example, Mr. CLIENT anticipates that the State may seek to use some unreliable snitch testimony from people who can be expected to vary their stories with the day of the week. If there is a particularly offensive inexactitude that arises during this confabulation, it may be very important to assure its immediate transcription.
6. Anything short of a copy of these portions of the record will not be adequate to preserve Mr. CLIENT's rights. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. at 229 (rejecting suggestion that in order to render effective assistance, counsel must have a perfect memory or keep exhaustive notes of the testimony given).
WHEREFORE, Mr. CLIENT moves that his motion be granted, and that provision be made so that limited daily transcripts will be available when needed.
??

(..continued)