to the “basic tools of an adequate defense or appeal, when those tools are available for a price to other prisoners.” Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 227, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971). While it is clear that, for example, a transcript of a prior proceeding is necessary for the proper pursuit of an appeal, it is not so clear that an indigent defendant is entitled to psychological assistance in order to develop his case for a downward departure at sentencing just because such services are available to paying defendants. Indigence is not considered a suspect classification, and thus the government argues that this Court need find only that the denial of funds had a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. See Mason v. Arizona, 504 F.2d 1345, 1354 (9th Cir.1974) (<HOLDING>). The government’s argument that the denial of
holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate holding that an indigent defendant cannot have a fair trial without being provided counsel holding that the filing of a motion for a new trial is a critical stage of the prosecution and that an indigent defendant is constitutionally entitled to the assistance of counsel at that stage holding courts have inherent authority to compel compensation for an attorney appointed to represent an indigent defendant holding that rational basis analysis applies to an indigent defendant seeking the assistance of an investigator for trial