Document: 365 U.S. 312 81 S.Ct. 645 5 L.Ed.2d 574 Thomas D. CLANCY et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. No. 88. Argued Jan. 10, 1961. Decided Feb. 27, Messrs. Paul P. Waller, Jr., and John F. O'Connell, East St. Louis, Ill., for petitioners. Mr. Daniel M. Friedman, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice DOUGLAS delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case presents an important question under 71 Stat. 595, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, U.S.C.A. statute sometimes referred to as Jencks Act, it deals with problems presented in our decision by that name. v. United States, 353 657, 77 1007, 1103. Petitioners were charged making false statements (18 1001, 1001), attempting evade wagering excise tax (26 7201, 26 7201), conspiring defraud States internal revenue taxes 371, 371). They found guilty judgments conviction affirmed. 7 Cir., 276 F.2d 617. The is here on a writ certiorari. 363 836, 80 1611, 4 1723. 2 At trial Minton, government agent, testified concerning interview petitioner, Kastner, at which he was present. Minton 'I did not take any notes time, but afterwards I returned office made memorandum interview.' Counsel Kastner asked court production pursuant Act.1 3 Other witnesses conversations they had Clancy, third partner petitioners' business. One witnesses, Agent Buescher, taken no during these interviews, 'compiled memorandum' from time second witness, Mochel. Both Buescher Mochel signed later memoranda conversations. petitioners requested memoranda, requests refused. court, though directing delivery defense refused saying written covered Act unless 'contemporaneously' interview. Government now concedes this erroneous ruling, indeed was. Each related 'to subject matter witness has testified.'2 'statement' word defined Act.3 requirement be contemporaneous applies only 'a substantially verbatim recital oral statement' agent.4 By terms Act,5 statement said or otherwise adopted approved him' also included. These fell category should have been produced. Campbell 85, 421, 428. And see Sheer, 278 65, 67—68. As Senate Report bill became states:6 'The committee believes legislation would clearly unconstitutional if sought restrict due process. On contrary, proposed legislation, reported, reaffirms Supreme Court its holding defendant criminal prosecution entitled reports possession touching events activities trial. 6 purpose establish procedural device will provide such authenticated relate directly upon his testimony.' Government, however, contends error harmless. It asserts—though record silent counsel deny it—that carbon copies Agents Bueschner But since version what transpired contested, urges most we do remand District determine whether If so delivered, argues, court's denial their harmless error. 8 We follow suggestion. deal find it, gives support Government's assertion defense. Moreover, positive prosecution. Those who present say candor speak 'according information,' admittedly falls short Since earnestly denies statement, can conclude before us denied inspection documents entitled. 9 put one side Rosenberg 360 367, 79 1231, 1304, where failure produce document considered particular circumstances case. reach point because, applicable, relevant report agents, those other two. least some withheld right defense, speculate could utilized effectively. supra, 667, 1013: 10 'Flat contradiction between witness' testimony given test inconsistency. omission facts trial, contrast emphasis same facts, even different order treatment, are cross-examining process testing credibility 11 Accordingly respects reversible committed new There questions raised reach, way knowing arise 12 Reversed. 13 CLARK, whom FRANKFURTER HARLAN join, dissenting. 14 convicted evasion conspiracy operation horse race booking enterprise. During production, certain interviews agents. request time. brief filed November 14, 1960, agrees refusal insists, attorneys stage cross-examination requested, 'unless agree (Government's) facts,' might sole question. 15 reply claim until Thursday, January 5, In date categorically delivered. supported affidavit attorneys. 16 came argument Tuesday, 10. advised employees involved available previous day hence counter affidavits obtainable. However, offered well Assistant Attorney tried case, claim. explaining situation confronted stated personally talked telephone after filed. conversation, said, together confirmed earlier conclusion contention correct. both assistant reference (Agent Mochel, controversy), every effort successful 9. when stand pocket took them out handed either (1) counsel, (2) trying passed courtroom. verified who, candidly admitted somewhat 'hazy' actually him counsel. indicates large number documents, including original insists factual creates 'sufficient doubt' require hearing judge determination controversy 17 Court, course, cannot conflicting assertions basis. view lateness denial, afforded sufficient supplement point. lodged testimony, 'memoranda' and, context, indications hands questioning him. Under appears me justice does solely harm done, then set aside grant hand, there predudicial stand. refuses done. reverses technicality, regardless fact persuasive evidence petitioner's access very reversal based. outside record. available, claims, fleeting references conclusion. simple more complete hearing. my fair opportunity. note granted just relief many cases. See 1961, 428; Shotwell Mfg. Co., 1957, 355 233, 78 245, 234; Communist Party v.Subversive Activities Control Board, 1956, 351 115, 76 663, 100 L.Ed. 1003. provides part: '(a) brought Cogernment prospective (other than defendant) agent shall subpena, discovery, direct examination '(b) After called examination, shall, motion defendant, (as hereinafter defined) relates testified. entire contents ordr use. '(e) term 'statement', used subsections (b), (c), (d) section relation means— '(1) him; '(2) stenographic, mechanical, electrical, recording, transcription thereof, recorded contemporaneously statement.' 3500(b), 3500 1. 3500(e), (e), 3500(e)(2), 3500(e)(1), S. Rep. 569, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2.

Category: 0