Source: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/373/487/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:07:51+00:00

Document:
After this Court's remand of this case, 365 U. S. 85, for further proceedings to determine whether petitioners' motion under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, for production of a pretrial statement of a government witness had been erroneously denied by the Federal District Court in their trial for bank robbery, further hearings were held in the District Court, from which it appeared that, after interviewing the witness and taking longhand notes of his account of the robbery, an FBI Agent had repeated back to the witness this account, referring to his notes; the witness had indicated that the Agent's oral presentation was accurate, but had not signed the notes; some hours later, the Agent had incorporated the substance of these notes in an interview report; and he had then destroyed the notes. The District Court found specifically that the Agent's oral presentation to the witness had "not merely adhered to the substance [of the notes] but, so far as practical, to the precise words"; that the witness had adopted this presentation; that the interview report was "almost in ipsissima verba the narrative [the Agent] had just checked with" the witness; and that, therefore, the report was producible as "a written statement made by said witness and . . . adopted . . . by him," within the meaning of § 3500(e)(1). The Court of Appeals reversed.
Held: The interview report should have been produced under § 3500(e)(1) at petitioners' trial; the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the judgments of conviction are vacated; and the case is remanded for further proceedings. Pp. 373 U. S. 488-497.
(a) On this record, the producibility of the interview report under § 3500(e)(1) depended upon the answers to two questions: (1) whether the Agent's oral version of the notes may fairly be deemed a reading back of the notes to the witness, and (2) whether the interview report may fairly be deemed a copy of the notes. Pp. 373 U. S. 492-493.
and the District Judge's findings thereon were not clearly erroneous. Pp. 373 U. S. 493-495.
(c) There were discrepancies between the testimony of the witness at the trial and his statements in the interview report, and fairness in federal criminal procedure, which the Jencks Act was enacted to secure, demands that this interview report, reasonably found to be an accurate copy of a written statement made by the witness the day after the robbery and adopted by him as his own, be producible for impeachment purposes. Pp. 373 U. S. 495-497.
On the basis of this testimony and the record of Staula's testimony at petitioners' trial, the trial judge held that neither the notes nor the Interview Report was producible under the Jencks Act. 206 F.Supp. 213. On appeal, the Court of Appeals expressed dissatisfaction with the judge's conduct of the hearing, but accepted his ruling that the Interview Report was not producible. 296 F.2d 527. However, the court held that the status of the notes could not be adequately determined without fresh testimony from Staula. [Footnote 4] Accordingly, the court, while retaining jurisdiction of the appeal generally, ordered a further hearing before a district judge other than the trial judge, with both Staula and Toomey to testify, for a determination "whether Staula signed or otherwise adopted or approved the notes." Id., 296 F.2d at 534.
his knowledge, what had happened. Toomey amplified his earlier testimony. On this record, the second district judge concluded, 199 F.Supp. 905, that Toomey's oral presentation to Staula had "not merely adhered to the substance [of the notes], but, so far as practical, to the precise words," id., 199 F.Supp. at 906; that Staula had adopted this presentation; that the Interview Report was "almost in ipsissima verba the narrative [Toomey] had just checked with Staula," id., 199 F.Supp. at 907; and that therefore the report was producible as "a written statement made by said witness and . . . adopted . . . by him." 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(1).
"Did Toomey write down what Staula told him at the interview? If so, did Toomey give Staula the paper 'to read over, to make sure that it was right' [as Staula had testified at the trial], and did Staula sign it?"
"Was the Interview Report the paper Staula described or a copy of that paper? In either case, as the trial judge ruled, the Interview Report would be a producible 'statement' under subsection (e)(1)."
be deemed a reading back of the notes to Staula; and whether the Interview Report may fairly be deemed a copy of the notes.
We think these questions properly are ones of fact, the determination of which by the district judge may not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous.
"Final decision as to production must rest, as it does so very often in procedural and evidentiary matters, within the good sense and experience of the district judge guided by the standards we have outlined, and subject to the appropriately limited review of appellate courts."
Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343, 360 U. S. 353. Cf. id., at 360 U. S. 360 (concurring opinion); Hance v. United States, 299 F.2d 389, 397 (C.A.8th Cir., 1962); United States v. Thomas, 282 F.2d 191 (C.A.2d Cir., 1960).
"The inquiry [is] a proceeding necessary to aid the judge to discharge the responsibility laid upon him to enforce the statute. . . . The statute . . . implies the duty in the trial judge affirmatively to administer the statute in such way as can best secure relevant and available evidence. . . ."
of the second district judge. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, the first hearing did not conform to our mandate in Campbell I, because Staula was not called to testify; and the hearing was unsatisfactory in other respects. [Footnote 8] Moreover, while Toomey's testimony at the second hearing did not contradict his earlier testimony, it was considerably more detailed. Also, we perceive no basic inconsistency between the factfindings made at the first hearing and those made at the second, although the later findings were more elaborate. [Footnote 9] Finally, we read the supplemental opinion of the Court of Appeals as having accepted the later findings as controlling and based its decision upon them.
Our holding today only gives effect to the "command of the statute [which] is . . . designed to further the fair and just administration of criminal justice. . . ."
The judgment of the Court of Appeals and the judgments of conviction are vacated, [Footnote 14] and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Specifically, we held that the district judge was required to hold a nonadversary hearing on the producibility of the notes and Interview Report. We also directed that attention be given the question what sanctions, if any, would be appropriate if it developed that the notes were producible but had been destroyed and that no copy had survived. See 365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 98, 18 U.S.C. § 3500(d).
The Interview Report was released by the Court of Appeals and was included in the record before this Court in Campbell I. The full text of the report is reproduced in 365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 90 and 91, n. 3.
"I think they wrote down what I said, and then I think they gave it back to me to read over, to make sure that it was right. And I think I had to sign it. Now, I am not sure. I couldn't remember before."
365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 89, n. 2. Staula was referring to his interview with Toomey.
These issues, basically, are whether the Interview Report is producible under § 3500(e)(2) of the Jencks Act and whether, if the notes are producible under the Act, their destruction gives rise to sanctions under subsection (d), or permits secondary evidence of their contents to be produced. The second district judge found that the Interview Report was a substantially verbatim recording of Staula's oral statement to Toomey, and hence producible under § 3500(e)(2). The Court of Appeals disagreed. Moreover, in denying rehearing, the Court of Appeals rendered an opinion holding that no sanctions could attach to Toomey's destruction of his notes because such destruction had not been in bad faith. 303 F.2d at 751. Our holding that the Interview Report is producible under § 3500(e)(1) makes it unnecessary fur us to consider any of the other issues, and we intimate no view on the correctness of the Court of Appeals' rulings on them.
It is settled, of course, that a written statement, to be producible under § 3500(e)(1), need not be signed by the witness, Campbell I, 365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 93-94; Bergman v. United States, 253 F.2d 933, 935, n. 1 (C.A.6th Cir., 1958); cf. United States v. Allegrucci, 299 F.2d 811, 813 and n. 3 (C.A.3d Cir., 1962), or written by him, Campbell I, 365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 93; United States v. Thomas, 282 F.2d 191, 194 (C.A.2d Cir., 1960); H.R.Rep. No. 700, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-6 (1957); Note, The Supreme Court, 1960 Term, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 40, 181-182 (1961), or be a substantially verbatim recording of a prior oral statement, see United States v. McCarthy, 301 F.2d 796 (C.A.3d Cir., 1962); United States v. Berry, 277 F.2d 826 (C.A.7th Cir., 1960).
The producibility of statements under the Jencks Act and their admissibility under the rules of evidence are separate questions, United States v. Berry, 277 F.2d 826, 830 (C.A.7th Cir., 1960), but obviously closely related.
"While technically the court called Toomey itself and permitted the defendants to cross-examine, the restrictions imposed upon counsel were such that it was cross-examination in name only. In spite of the fact that the witness was a special agent of long standing who had discussed his testimony with the Assistant U.S. Attorney immediately before the hearing, the court hovered constantly over him like an over-anxious mother. With respect to correlation between the notes, Staula's statements, and the eventual report, the Supreme Court's directions for a non-adversary proceeding to assist the court in performing its duty, with the defendants permitted to cross-examine, were honored largely in the breach."
"3. . . . Agent Toomey repeated to Mr. Staula, from memory and using the notes which he had taken only to refresh his recollection, the substance of the story which Mr. Staula had related to him. . . ."
"4. Agent Toomey did not transcribe the story related to him by Mr. Staula word for word."
206 F.Supp. at 214. We do not read these as findings that Toomey's oral presentation was not an accurate reproduction of the contents of the notes. Apparently, the judge based his conclusion of nonproducibility under § 3500(e)(1) on the legally erroneous supposition that adoption of an oral presentation of a written statement did not constitute a permissible mode of adopting the written statement.
One judge, concurring in the Court of Appeals, questioned the correctness of the District Court's finding that the Interview Report recorded Staula's statement "almost in ipsissima verba." 303 F.2d at 751. But he did not suggest, nor, we think, could he on this record, that there were material differences between the statement and the report. It is not suggested, for example, that the descriptions of the robbers in the report or the statement in the report that Staula had not observed a third robber -- the crucial portions of the report for impeachment purposes -- differed in the slightest relevant particular from the notes or oral presentation. The only variances, apparently, are grammatical and syntactical changes, rearrangement into chronological order, and omissions and additions of information immaterial for impeachment purposes.
As a copy, we consider the report admissible as independent evidence for impeachment purposes, and not merely as secondary evidence of the notes which have been destroyed. See generally United States v. Annunziato, supra, 293 F.2d at 382; United States v. Thomas, supra, 282 F.2d at 194-195.
"Every experienced trial judge and trial lawyer knows the value for impeaching purposes of statements of the witness recording the events before time dulls treacherous memory. Flat contradiction between the witness' testimony and the version of the events given in his reports is not the only test of inconsistency. The omission from the reports of facts related at the trial, or a contrast in emphasis upon the same facts, even a different order of treatment, are also relevant to the cross-examining process of testing the credibility of a witness' trial testimony."
Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657, 353 U. S. 667. The Jencks Act, of course, "reaffirms" our holding in Jencks v. United States, supra. Campbell I, 365 U.S. at 365 U. S. 92.
We intimate no view on the probative weight to be accorded the Interview Report as impeaching Staula's trial testimony; that is a matter for the triers of facts. And, of course, nothing we say is intended to suggest that a showing of inconsistency is a prerequisite to the production of documents under the Jencks Act. Jencks v. United States, supra, at 353 U. S. 667-668; 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b).
Understandably, no contention has been made that the refusal to produce the Interview Report can be deemed harmless error under the principles laid down in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U. S. 367. Cf. Gordon v. United States, 344 U. S. 414.
typed by a secretary, working entirely from the transcription, he checked its accuracy and then destroyed the notes.
The Court holds the "oral recitation" to be "a written statement made by said witness [Staula] and . . . adopted . . . by him," within the purview of 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(1). It reaches this result via a construction reminiscent of the Rube Goldberg cartoons, basing its holding upon the following conclusions: (1) the Special Agent may be fairly deemed to have read his notes back to Staula, since "it is not seriously suggested that there was a material variance or inconsistency"; (2) Staula approved, and thereby adopted, this "reading" of the notes; and (3) the Special Agent reduced the notes to narrative in his interview report which, as the trial court found, was "almost in ipsissima verba the narrative" the Special Agent had recited to Staula. The Court thus transmutes the interview report into a written statement made by Staula and adopted by him, and strikes down the conviction because the interview report was not produced at the trial upon the request of the defense.
later dictating his formal report. These notes were not in narrative form, they were not read to Staula by the Special Agent, nor did Staula read them himself or initial or sign them. The Special Agent merely recounted to Staula a narrative of the events which the latter had described. It is true that, in so doing, he referred to his notes from time to time, but the evidence is clear that the notes were not included verbatim in this recitation. Every lawyer -- indeed every layman experienced in the taking of interviews -- knows full well that it is extremely unlikely that any two narratives, even though prepared from identical notes, will be alike. Likewise, the common experience of all of us belies the conclusion that the interview report was "almost in ipsissima verba the narrative" recited by the Special Agent to Staula. But even if it were, the statute does not cover a written report such as we have here, prepared from the agent's memory, as well as his notes, some nine hours subsequent to the interview and neither read by or to the witness nor shown to him prior to what the Court terms his "adoption" of it.
identity inferred by the court."
303 F.2d 747, 751. Even the expertise of an experienced Special Agent of the FBI does not rescue such a conclusion from beyond credulity.
"be grossly unfair to allow the defense to use statements to impeach a witness which could not fairly be said to be the witness' own, rather than the product of the investigator's selections, interpretations, and interpolations."
This in exactly what the Court is doing today. Extension of the statute to include such reports can only result in mischief, permitting a skillful defense lawyer to repudiate and destroy a witness and obstruct the administration of justice. I therefore dissent.
"Q. Did you, Mr. Toomey, write down what Mr. Staula told you at the interview?"
"A. I took notes concerning the information that he furnished to me."
Cross-examination of Special Agent Toomey, Transcript of Record, p. 4.
"Q. Mr. Toomey, did you give Mr. Staula the paper that you made your notes on to read over?"
"[fol. 12] A. I did not, sir."
"Q. Did you read it back to Mr. Staula?"
"A. As I previously stated, I took notes and I did not read the notes back to him verbatim."
"THE COURT: The witness said he went over his notes."
"Did you mean to infer that you read your notes over [fol. 54] to Mr. Staula?"
"THE WITNESS: No, sir, I did not."
"THE COURT: You looked at them, and then you repeated what he said -- you didn't read them over to him?"
"THE COURT: He didn't see them?"
"THE WITNESS: No, your Honor."
"THE COURT: They were in your possession, so he could not have done that."
"Q. There was the desk in the front of where both of you people were sitting?"
"Q. Your notes contained the whole story supplied to you by Mr. Staula?"
"Q. And it was vital, wasn't it, Mr. Toomey, that what was contained in your notes be Mr. Staula's story?"
"Q. The method you employed to double check was to read your notes, of what Mr. Staula had told you aloud and get Mr. Staula to agree with you that that was accurate -- the information that you had for future use, that is so isn't it, Mr. Toomey?"
"[fol. 55] A. Not exactly. I did not read them back to the witness. I went over the story again, refreshing my memory by referring to my notes."
"Q. That is right -- that is what your memory was, which was on the papers that you had recorded -- and whatever you said came from those papers, that is so, isn't it?"
"A. No, sir, not everything."
"Q. Now, of course, Mr. Toomey, with all your experience, investigating this bank robbery, it is so, isn't it, that the most vital part of the entire interview was the question whether or not your notes meant to Mr. Staula the same thing as they meant to you; that is so, isn't it?"
"MR. KOEN: I pray your Honor's judgment."
"THE COURT: Well, he may answer that question."
"Q. Now isn't it so, Mr. Toomey, that another vital part of your interview was whether or not the wellspring of all your knowledge regarding Dominic Staula was correct?"
"Q. As a matter of fact, after you had read back, it is so, isn't it, sir, that the most vital part of your entire effort taking notes, reading them back, was the question [fol. 327] whether or not Dominic Staula agreed with them?"
"A. I didn't read the notes back to him, sir."
Redirect examination of Special Agent Toomey, id. at 123.

References: § 3500
 § 3500
 § 3500
 § 3500
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3500
 § 3500
 § 3500
 § 3500
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3500