In the case of Britt v. North Carolina, 1971, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot require an indigent defendant to demonstrate special need for a free transcript of prior proceedings before it is provided. The petitioner, George Britt Jr., was convicted in two separate trials for armed robbery and assault with intent to rape but appealed on grounds that he was denied due process because he could not afford transcripts from his first trial which were necessary for preparing his defense in the second trial. The court held that since Mr. Britt had been represented by the same counsel at both trials who was familiar with issues involved and there were no complex or subtle legal questions presented during them, denying him access to free transcripts did not violate his constitutional rights under Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Britt v. North Carolina, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Britt's conviction based on a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. He argued that there was no constitutional error in admitting into evidence a transcript from an earlier trial where the witness had been cross-examined by the same defense counsel representing Britt at his second trial. Justice Harlan believed that this situation did not infringe upon any rights guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because it allowed for adequate opportunity for cross-examination and confrontation during previous proceedings. Furthermore, he contended that even if there were errors made in admitting such testimony, they would be harmless beyond reasonable doubt given other overwhelming evidence presented against Britt.