Johnson v. United States

U.S.

Court: Supreme Court of the United States

Citations: 352 U.S. 565, 77 S. Ct. 550, 1 L. Ed. 2d 593, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1224, SCDB 1956-053

Decision Date: 3/4/1957

Docket Number: No. 531

Jurisdiction: U.S.

Bluebook Citation: Johnson v. United States, 352 U.S. 565, 77 S. Ct. 550, 1 L. Ed. 2d 593, 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1224, SCDB 1956-053 (1957)

More Cases: U.S. decisions from 1957

Citation analytics

How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.

★Landmark AuthorityTop 1% most-cited · cited by 128 decisions

128

Citing decisions

Authorities cited

statute cited

Courts citing

Citations by decade

1950s1960s1970s1980s1990s2000s2010s2020s

Courts citing this case

8th Cir.20

9th Cir.14

5th Cir.12

U.S.12

D.C. Cir.10

2d Cir.9

Most recently cited by10

2025United States v. Anthony Brookins 3rd Cir.
2023United States v. Altese Moore 3rd Cir.
2022Myles v. United States Fed. Cir.
2015Arzuaga v. Quiros 2d Cir.
2013Inre: Mallgren Fed. Cir.
2009United States v. Powell 5th Cir.
2007Florence v. Delta Correctional Facility 5th Cir.
2007Miller v. United States Fed. Cir.
2007United States v. Alvarez S.D. Fla.
1997McGore v. Wrigglesworth 6th Cir.

Cites 1 statute

Proceedings in forma pauperis

Cites 2 cases

Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.

Opinion

JOHNSON v. UNITED STATES.

Attorneys

William H. Timbers for petitioner.
Solicitor General Rankin, Assistant Attorney General Olney and Beatrice Rosenberg for the United States.

majority Per Curiam.

The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, as is leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

By the Act of June 25, 1910, 86 Stat. 866, as now enlarged in 28 U. S. C. § 1915, Congress provided for proceedings in forma pauperis on appeal unless “the trial court certifies in writing that it [the appeal] is not taken in good faith.” Such certification is not final in the sense that the convicted defendant is barred from showing that it was unwarranted and that an appeal should be allowed. Of course, certification by the judge presiding at the trial carries great weight but, necessarily, it cannot be conclusive. Upon a proper showing a Court of Appeals has a duty to displace a District Court’s certification. Moreover, a Court of Appeals must, under Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, afford one who challenges that certification the aid of counsel unless he insists on being his own. Finally, either the defendant or his assigned counsel must be enabled to show that the grounds for seeking an appeal from the judgment of conviction are not frivolous and do not justify the finding that the appeal is not sought in good faith. This does not require that in every such case the United States must furnish the defendant with a stenographic transcript of the trial. It is essential, however, that he be assured some appropriate means — such as the district judge’s notes or an agreed statement by trial counsel — of making manifest the basis of his claim that the District Court committed error in certifying that the desired appeal was not pursued in good faith. See Miller v. United States, 317 U. S. 192, 198.

Since here the Court of Appeals did not assign counsel to assist petitioner in prosecuting his application for leave to appeal in forma pauperis and since it does not appear that the Court of Appeals assured petitioner adequate means of presenting it with a fair basis for determining whether the District Court’s certification was warranted, the judgment below must be vacated and the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

So ordered.