Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): over sooner. The Jencks Act is clear: it requires production of impeachment material only after a “witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case.” 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a). Therefore, any materials disclosed prior to trial exceeded the government’s obligations under the Act. The only material Fletcher specifically identifies in his brief as having never been disclosed was material from the proffer sessions of government witness Ben Bashaw. The government claims it could not disclose the alleged statement because a report was not made of the proffer session. The defendant bears the burden of proving that a “statement” for purposes of the Jencks Act exists and is covered by the Act’s disclosure requirements. See United States v. Dark, 597 F.2d 1097, 1099 (6th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>); accord United States v. Grecni, 1991 WL 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that because the court credited defense testimony over prosecution testimony and there was a reasonable basis in the record for the trial court finding that an agreement existed between the defense and the prosecution the decision could not be disturbed on appeal (B) holding that counsel was ineffective for failing to assert an entrapment defense that was legally available and where there was no other viable defense to present (C) holding no liability existed under the circumstances (D) holding that where there is evidence sufficient to sustain finding of trial court that prejudicial error was contained in record there is no basis for stating that trial court abused discretion in granting new trial (E) holding that trial court was under no obligation to examine the file in camera since there was no basis for belief that a jencks act statement existed other than those already furnished defense counsel
Output (English): holding that because the court credited defense testimony over prosecution testimony and there was a reasonable basis in the record for the trial court finding that an agreement existed between the defense and the prosecution the decision could not be disturbed on appeal