For most Americans, the promise of justice includes the chance to appeal when a court makes a mistake. But in Maryland, that promise has often been an illusion—especially for the poor. Two cases, nearly thirty years apart, tell the story of how ordinary people were forced to choose between feeding their families and buying access to transcripts, the lifeblood of an appeal.

Bernard Miller: A Man Caught Between His Lawyer and the State

Back in the 1990s, Bernard Eric Miller stood convicted of serious crimes in Maryland. But his fight wasn’t just about guilt or innocence—it was about whether he’d even be allowed to challenge his conviction in the first place.

Miller had something most poor defendants dream of: a pro bono lawyer willing to represent him for free. But Maryland’s rules put him in an impossible bind. If he wanted a free trial transcript—the record his lawyer needed to mount an appeal—he had to fire his private attorney and accept a state-appointed public defender. If he stayed with the lawyer he trusted, he’d have to pay thousands of dollars for the transcript himself.

That choice wasn’t really a choice at all. Miller stuck with his lawyer, couldn’t afford the transcript, and his appeal was tossed.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit backed Maryland’s rule, saying the state had met its obligations by offering public defenders. But to anyone outside the ivory tower, the injustice was clear: a man’s right to challenge his conviction was blocked by red tape and a government monopoly on indigent defense.

Shaoshan Feng: A Mother’s Divorce Appeal Stopped by Paperwork

Fast forward to 2024. This time it wasn’t a criminal defendant, but a woman going through divorce in Montgomery County. Her name was Shaoshan Feng.

Feng represented herself in court because she couldn’t afford an attorney. When she lost her case, she tried to appeal. But just like Miller, she hit the same wall: transcripts. The appellate court demanded records from several hearings. Feng thought she had the key transcript, but couldn’t pay for the rest. The court dismissed her appeal.

For months, her case sat in limbo—until Maryland’s highest court stepped in. It pointed to a brand-new program that might cover transcript costs for people like her. Thanks to that program, Feng’s appeal was reinstated. But the lesson was chilling: without government subsidies, her appeal would have been dead before it began.

Two People, Same Trap

What connects Bernard Miller in the 1990s and Shaoshan Feng in the 2020s? Both were poor. Both tried to fight their cases. And both were told that unless they played by the government’s rules—or found thousands of dollars lying around—they couldn’t even get a hearing on appeal.

Maryland calls this “access to justice.” But in practice, it’s access only if you surrender to a state-appointed lawyer or win the lottery of a new bureaucracy willing to cover your costs.

The Conservative Takeaway

From a right-of-center perspective, these stories highlight a deeper truth: government solutions often create more problems. Instead of lowering the outrageous cost of transcripts with modern technology—digital recording, AI transcription, or private-sector competition—Maryland doubled down on bureaucracy. First, by forcing defendants into its own public defender system. Then, decades later, by inventing a new subsidy program that keeps transcript prices high while growing administrative payrolls.

Ordinary people like Miller and Feng shouldn’t have to beg the state for permission to appeal. True reform means breaking the government’s monopoly, driving down costs, and restoring the principle that justice belongs to the people—not to the system.