NCJ Number
47471
Journal
Capital University Law Review Volume: 7 Issue: 3 Dated: (1978) Pages: 469-482
Date Published
1978
Length
14 pages
Annotation
COURT CASES WHICH COMPEL PRISON AUTHORITIES TO MAINTAIN PRISON LAW LIBRARIES AT JUDICIALLY PRESCRIBED MIMINUM STANDARDS ARE SUMMARIZED, AND ALTERNATIVE MEANS PROVIDING PRISONER ACCESS TO THE COURTS ARE DISCUSSED.
Abstract
MANY PRISONERS WITH LIMITED FINANCIAL RESOURCES HAVE PROCURED ACCESS TO THE COURTS THROUGH THE USE OF FELLOW PRISONERS OR PETITIONS FILED PRO SE. IN THE PAST, PRISON AUTHORITIES TRIED TO LIMIT THE USE OF 'JAILHOUSE LAWYERS' AND FURTHER RESTRICTED PRISONER ACCESS TO THE COURTS BY NEGLECTING TO UPGRADE THE PRISON LAW LIBRARY AND BY LIMITING PRISONER ACCESS TO LIBRARY FACILITIES. IN A SERIES OF COURT CASES BEGINNING IN 1941, A PRISONER'S RIGHT OF ACCESS TO A DECENT LAW LIBRARY WAS GRADUALLY DEFINED. IN 1970, THE NUMBER OF THESE CASES RAPIDLY INCREASED. IN GILMORE V. LYNCH IN 1971, THE U.S. SUPREME COURT HELD THAT A PRISONER'S RIGHT TO MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS WAS INFRINGED UPON BY THE INADEQUATE LAW LIBRARY MAINTAINED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS. CALIFORNIA HAD MAINTAINED THAT SUCH A LAW LIBRARY WAS UNNECESSARY BECAUSE AN ARRANGEMENT HAD BEEN MADE WITH NEARBY LAW SCHOOLS FOR LEGAL AID AND A PUBLIC DEFENDER PROGRAM EXISTED. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THESE OTHER AVENUES DID NOT ABSOLVE THE STATE FROM ITS DUTY TO MAINTAIN AN ADEQUATE LAW LIBRARY FOR PRISONERS. THIS CONCEPT HAS BEEN REFINED BY SEVERAL SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS, WHICH HAVE CARRIED THE RIGHT OF ACCESS FROM A NEBULOUS RECOGNITION TO SPECIFIC COURT-ORDERED BOOK LISTS. IN 1975, THE NORTH CAROLINA CASE OF BOUNDS V. SMITH EXPANDED THE DUTY OF THE STATES TO BEAR BOTH THE COST AND THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PROVIDING ADEQUATE RESEARCH FACILITIES. A CORE LIBRARY WAS MAINTAINED AT EACH OF THE 80 BRANCHES OF THE STATE'S CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES, AND AN EXTENSIVE CENTRAL LIBRARY PROVIDED COPIES OF REQUESTED MATERIALS. THE SUPREME COURT CALLED THIS ADEQUATE AND STATED THAT ACCESS TO THE COURTS COULD ALSO BE PROVIDED BY TRAINING INMATES AS PARALEGALS, BY USING LAW SCHOOL PROGRAMS, OR BY HAVING STAFF ATTORNEYS. THE THREE DISSENTING OPINIONS QUESTIONED THE DUTY OF THE STATES TO MAINTAIN SUCH EXTENSIVE LAW LIBRARIES WITH PUBLIC FUNDS WHEN OTHER MEANS OF PROVIDING ACCESS COULD BE FOUND. IT IS SUGGESTED THAT PRISON FACILITIES WHICH HAVE ADEQUATE LIBRARIES AND PROVIDE MEANINGFUL ACCESS TO THE COURTS ARE UNDER NO FURTHER OBLIGATION TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, NO MATTER HOW HELPFUL THESE SERVICES MIGHT BE. NOTES ARE INCLUDED. (GLR)