Source: https://openjurist.org/422/us/225
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 14:19:34+00:00

Document:
* Respondent was tried and convicted on charges arising from an armed robbery of a federally insured bank. The only significant evidence linking him to the crime was the identification testimony of two witnesses, a bank teller and a salesman who was in the bank during the robbery.1 Respondent offered an alibi but, as the Court of Appeals recognized, 501 F.2d, at 150, his strongest defense centered around attempts to discredit these eyewitnesses. Defense efforts to impeach them gave rise to the events that led to this decision.
In the course of preparing respondent's defense, an investigator for the defense interviewed both witnesses and preserved the essence of those conversations in a written report. When the witnesses testified for the prosecution, respondent's counsel relied on the report in conducting their cross-examination. Counsel asked the bank teller whether he recalled having told the investigator that he had seen only the back of the man he identified as respondent. The witness replied that he did not remember making such a statement. He was allowed, despite defense counsel's initial objection, to refresh his recollection by referring to a portion of the investigator's report. The prosecutor also was allowed to see briefly the relevant portion of the report.2 The witness thereafter testified that although the report indicated that he told the investigator he had seen only respondent's back, he in fact had seen more than that and continued to insist that respondent was the bank robber.
The other witness acknowledged on cross-examination that he too had spoken to the defense investigator. Respondent's counsel twice inquired whether he told the investigator that 'all blacks looked alike' to him, and in each instance the witness denied having made such a statement. The prosecution again sought inspection of the relevant portion of the investigator's report, and respondent's counsel again objected. The court declined to order disclosure at that time, but ruled that it would be required if the investigator testified as to the witnesses' alleged statements from the witness stand.3 The court further advised that it would examine the investigator's report in camera and would excise all reference to matters not relevant to the precise statements at issue.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit while acknowledging that the trial court's ruling constituted a 'very limited and seemingly judicious restriction,' 501 F.2d, at 151, nevertheless considered it reversible error. Citing United States v. Wright, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 68, 489 F.2d 1181, 1192 (1973), the court found that the Fifth Amendment prohibited the disclosure condition imposed in this case. The court further held that Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 16, while framed exclusively in terms of pretrial discovery, precluded prosecutorial discovery at trial as well. 501 F.2d, at 157; accord, United States v. Wright, supra, at 66—67, 489 F.2d, at 1190—1191. In each respect, we think the court erred.
Decisions of this Court repeatedly have recognized the federal judiciary's inherent power to require the prosecution to produce the previously recorded statements of its witnesses so that the defense may get the full benefit of cross-examination and the truth-finding process may be enhanced. See, e.g., Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1957);5 Gordon v. United States, 344 U.S. 414, 73 S.Ct. 369, 97 L.Ed. 447 (1953); Goldman v. United States, 316 U.S. 129, 62 S.Ct. 993, 86 L.Ed. 1322 (1942); Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 361, 79 S.Ct. 1217, 1229, 3 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1959) (Brennan, J., concurring in result). At issue here is whether, in a proper case, the prosecution can call upon that same power for production of witness statements that facilitate 'full disclosure of all the (relevant) facts.' United States v. Nixon, supra, 418 U.S., at 709, 94 S.Ct., at 3108.
The Court of Appeals also held that Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 16 deprived the trial court of the power to order disclosure of the relevant portions of the investigator's report.8 Acknowledging that the Rule appears to control pretrial discovery only, the court nonetheless determined that its reference to the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, signaled an intention that Rule 16 should control trial practice as well. We do not agree.
Both the language and history of Rule 16 indicate that it addresses only pretrial discovery. Rule 16(f) requires that a motion for discovery be filed 'within 10 days after arraignment or . . . such reasonable later time as the court may permit,' and further commands that it include all relief sought by the movant. When this provision is viewed in light of the Advisory Committee's admonition that it is designed to encourage promptness in filing and to enable the district court to avoid unnecessary delay or multiplication of motions, see Advisory Committee's Notes on Rule 16, 18 U.S.C. App., p. 4494, the pretrial focus of the Rule becomes apparent. The Government's right of discovery arises only after the defendant has successfully sought discovery under subsection (a)(2) or (b) and is confined to matters 'which the defendant intends to produce at the trial.' Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 16(c). This hardly suggests any intention that the Rule would limit the court's power to order production once trial has begun.9 Finally, he Advisory Committee's Notes emphasize its pretrial character. Those notes repeatedly characterize the Rule as a provision governing pretrial disclosure, never once suggesting that it was intended to constrict a district court's control over evidentiary questions arising at trial. 18 U.S.C. App., pp. 4493—4495.
The incorporation of the Jencks Act limitation on the pretrial right of discovery provided by Rule 16 does not express a contrary intent. It only restricts the defendant's right of pretrial discovery in a manner that reconciles that provision with the Jencks Act limitation on the trial court's discretion over evidentiary matters. It certainly does not convert Rule 16 into a general limitation on the trial court's broad discretion as to evidentiary questions at trial. Cf. Giles v. Maryland, 386 U.S. 66, 101, 87 S.Ct. 793, 810, 17 L.Ed.2d 737 (1967) (Fortas, J., concurring in judgment).10 We conclude, therefore, that Rule 16 imposes no constraint on the District Court's power to condition the impeachment testimony of respondent's witness on the production of the relevant portions of his investigative report. In extending the Rule into the trial context, the Court of Appeals erred.
'Historically, a lawyer is an officer of the court and is bound to work for the advancement of justice while faithfully protecting the rightful interests of his clients. In performing his various duties, however, it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, free from unnecessary intrusion by opposing parties and their counsel. Proper preparation of a client's case demands that he assemble information, sift what he considers to be the relevant from the irrelevant facts, prepare his legal theories and plan his strategy without undue and needless interference. That is the historical and the necessary way in which lawyers act within the framework of our system of jurisprudence to promote justice and to protect their clients' interests. This work is reflected, of course, in interviews, statements, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, personal beliefs, and countless other tangible and intangible ways—aptly though roughly telrmed by the Circuit Court of Appeals in this case as the 'Work product of the lawyer.' Were such materials open to opposing counsel on mere demand, much of what is now put down in writing would remain unwritten. An attorney's thoughts, heretofore inviolate, would not be his own. Inefficiency, unfairness and sharp practices would inevitably develop in the giving of legal advice and in the preparation of cases for trial. The effect on the legal profession would be demoralizing. And the interests of the clients and the cause of justice would be poorly served.' Id.8 at 510—511, 67 S.Ct., at 393.
the Court therefore recognized a qualified privilege for certain materials prepared by an attorney 'acting for his client in anticipation of litigation.' Id., at 508, 67 S.Ct., at 392.11 See generally 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice 26.63 (2d ed. 1974); E. Cleary, McCormick on Evidence 204—209 (2d ed. 1972); Note, Developments in the Law—Discovery, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 940, 1027—1046 (1961).
At its core, the work-product doctrine shelters the mental processes of the attorney, providing a privileged area within which he can analyze and prepare his client's case. But the doctrine is an intensely practical one, grounded in the realities of litigation in our adversary system. One of those realities is that attorneys often must rely on the assistance of investigators and other agents in the compilation of materials in preparation for trial. It is therefore necessary that the doctrine protect material prepared by agents for the attorney as well as those prepared by the attorney himself.13 Moreover, the concerns reflected in the work-product doctrine do not disappear once trial has begun. Disclosure of an attorney's efforts at trial, as surely as disclosure during pretrial discovery, could disrupt the orderly development and presentation of his case. We need not, however, undertake here to delineate the scope of the doctrine at trial, for in this instance it is clear that the defense waived such right as may have existed to invoke its protections.
* Up until now the work-product doctrine of Hickman v. Taylor, supra, has been viewed almost exclusively as a limitation on the ability of a party to obtain pretrial discovery. It has not been viewed as a 'limitation on the trial court's broad discretion as to evidentiary questions at trial.' Ante, at 236. The problem discussed in Hickman v. Taylor arose precisely because, in addition to accelerating the time when a party could obtain evidentiary matter from his adversary,1 the new Federal Rules of Civil Procedure greatly expanded the nature of the material subject to pretrial disclosure.2 Under the Rules, a party was, for the first time, entitled to know in advance his opponent's evidence and was entitled to obtain from his opponent nonprivileged 'information as to the existence or whereabouts of facts' relevant to a case even though the 'information' was not itself evidentiary. Hickman v. Taylor, supra, 329 U.S., at 501, 67 S.Ct., at 389. Utilizing these Rules, the plaintiff in Hickman v. Taylor sought discovery of statements obtained by defense counsel from witnesses to the events relevant to the lawsuit, not for evidentiary use but only 'to help prepare himself to examine witnesses and to make sure that he ha(d) overlooked nothing.' 329 U.S., at 513, 67 S.Ct., at 395 (emphasis added). In concluding that these statements should not be produced, the Court treated the matter entirely as one involving the plaintiff's entitlement to pretrial discovery under the new Federal Rules,3 and carefully limited its opinion accordingly. The relevant Rule in the Court's view, Rule 26, on its face required production of the witness statements unless they were privileged. Nonetheless, the Court expressly stated that the request for witness statements was to be denied 'not because the subject matter is privileged' (although noting that a work-product 'privilege' applies in England, 329 U.S., at 510, 67 S.Ct., at 393) as that concept was used in the Rules, but because the request 'falls outside the arena of discovery.' Id., at 510, 67 S.Ct., at 393 (emphasis added). The Court stated that it is essential that a lawyer work with a certain degree of privacy, and concluded that the effect of giving one lawyer's work (particularly his strategy, legal theories, and mental impressions) to another would have a 'demoralizing' effect on the legal profession. The Court then noted that witness statements might be admissible in evidence under some circumstances and might be usable to impeach or corroborate a witness. However, it concluded that in the case before it the plaintiff wanted the statements for preparation only and had shown no reason why he could not obtain everything he sought by doing his own work rather than utilizing that of his adversary.
Similarly, the commentators have all treated the attorney work-product rule solely as a limitation on pretrial discover, e.g., 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice 26.63—26.64 (2d ed. 1974); 8 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2026 (1970); 2A W. Barron & A. Holtzoff, Federal Practice and Procedure § 652 (Wright ed. 1961), and some have expressly stated that it does not apply to evidentiary matter. F. James, Civil Procedure 211 n. 13 (1965); 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice 16.23(8.—4) (1963).
The reasons for largely confining the work-product rule to its role as a limitation on pretrial discovery are compelling. First of all, the injury to the fact-finding process is far greater where a rule keeps evidence from the factfinder than when it simply keeps advance disclosure of evidence from a party or keeps from him leads to evidence developed by his adversary and which he is just as well able to find by himself. In the main, where a party seeks to discover a statement made to an opposing party in order to prepare for trial, he can obtain the 'substantial equivalent . . . by other means,' Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 26(b)(3), i.e., by interviewing the witness himself. A prior inconsistent statement in the Possession of his adversary, however, when sought for evidentiary purposes—i.e., to impeach the witness after he testifies—is for that purpose unique. By the same token, the danger perceived in Hickman that each party to a case will decline to prepare in the hopes of eventually using his adversary's preparation is absent when disclosure will take place only at trial. Indeed, it is very difficult to articulate a reason why statements on the same subject matter as a witness' testimony should not be turned over to an adversary after the witness has testified. The statement will either be consistent with the witness' testimony, in which case it will be useless and disclosure will be harmless; or it will be inconsistent and of unquestioned value to the jury. Any claim that disclosure of such a statement would lead the trial into collateral and confusing issues was rejected by this Court in Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103 (1957), and by Congress in the legislation which followed.
The strong negative implication in Hickman v. Taylor, supra, that the work-product rule does not apply to evidentiary requests at trial became a holding in Jencks v. United States, supra. There a defendant in a criminal case sought production by the Government at trial of prior statements made by its witnesses on the same subject matter as their testimony. The Government argued, inter alia, that production would violate the "legitimate interest that each party—including the Government—has in safeguarding the privacy of its files." 353 U.S., at 670, 77 S.Ct., at 1014. The Court held against the Government. The Court said that to deny disclosure of prior statements which might be used to impeach the witnesses was to 'deny the accused evidence relevant and material to his defense,' id., at 667, 77 S.Ct., at 1013 (emphasis added). Also rejected as unrealistic was any rule which would require the defendant to demonstrate the impeachment value of the prior statements before disclosure,8 and the Court held that entitlement to disclosure for use in cross-examination is 'established when the reports are shown to relate to the testimony of the witness.' Id., at 669, 77 S.Ct., at 1014. Thus, not only did the Court reject the notion that there was a 'work product' limitation on the trial judge's discretion to order production of evidentiary matter at trial, but it was affirmatively held that prior statements of a witness on the subject of his testimony are the kind of evidentiary matter to which an adversary is entitled.
Mr. Justice Jackson, in concurring, was even more explicit on this point. See supra, at 245. Pursuant to this language, the lower courts have ordered evidence to be turned over pretrial even when it came into being as a result of the adversary's efforts in preparation for trial.9 A member of a defense team who witnesses an out-of-court statement of someone who later testifies at trial in a contradictory fashion becomes at that moment a witnesss to a relevant and admissible event, and the cases cited above would dictate disclosure of any reports he may have written about the event.10 Since prior statements are inadmissible hearsay until the witness testifies, there is no occasion for ordering reports of such statements produced as evidence pretrial. However, some courts have ordered witness statements produced pretrial in the likelihood that they will become impeachment evidence.11 Moreover, where access to witnesses or to their information is unequal, discovery of their statements is often granted solely to help a party prepare for trial regardless of any eventual evidentiary value of the out-of-court statements. See Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Relating to Discovery, 48 F.R.D., at 501.
The remarks of the Court in Hickman v. Taylor, supra, while made in the context of a request for pretrial discovery have application to the evidentiary use of lawyers' memoranda of witness interviews at trial. It is unnecessary, however, to decide in this case whether the policies against putting in issue the credibility of the lawyer who will sum up to the jury outweigh the jury's interest in obtaining all relevant information; and whether Jencks v. United States, supra, and 18 U.S.C. s 3500 are to be viewed as expressing a preference for disclosure of all facts.15 In this case, the creator of the memorandum was not the trial lawyer but an investigator16 and he was, in any event, to be called as a witness by the defense. Accordingly, I would reverse the judgment below because, quite apart from waiver, the work-product rule of Hickman v. Taylor, supra, has no application to the request at trial for evidentiary and impeachment material made in this case.
The discretion recognized by the Court in Jencks subsequently was circumscribed by Congress in the so-called Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500. See generally Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 79 S.Ct. 1217, 3 L.Ed.2d 1287 (1959).
'The purpose of the relevant part of the Fifth Amendment is to prevent compelled self-incrimination, not to protect private information. Testimony demanded of a witness may be very private indeed, but unless it is incriminating and protected by the Amendment or unless protected by one of the evidentiary privileges, it must be disclosed.' Maness v. Meyers, 419 U.S. 449, 473—474, 95 S.Ct. 584, 598, 42 L.Ed.2d 574 (1975) (White, J., concurring in result). Moreover, the constitutional guarantee protects only against forced individual disclosure of a 'testimonial or communicative nature,' Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 761, 86 S.Ct. 1826, 1830, 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); see also United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 222, 87 S.Ct. 1926, 1929, 18 L.Ed.2d 1149 (1967); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S.Ct. 1951, 18 L.Ed.2d 1178 (1967).
Rule 16(c), which establishes the Government's reciprocal right of pretrial discovery, excepts 'reports, memoranda, or other internal defense documents made by the defendant, or his attorneys or agents in connection with the investigation or defense of the case, or of statements made by the defendant, or by government or defense witnesses, or by prospective government or defense witnesses, to the defendant, his agents or attorneys.' That Rule therefore would not authorize pretrial discovery of the investigator's report. The proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure leave this subsection substantially unchanged. See Proposed Rule 16 of Criminal Procedure, 62 F.R.D. 271, 305—306 (1974).
We note also that the commentators who have considered Rule 16 have not suggested that it is directed to the court's control of evidentiary questions arising at trial. See, e.g., Nakell, Criminal Discovery for the Defense and the Prosecution—the Developing Constitutional Considerations, 50 N.C.L.Rev. 437, 494 514 (1972); Rezneck, The New Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, 54 Geo.L.J. 1276, 1279, 1282 n. 19 (1966); Note, Prosecutorial Discovery Under Proposed Rule 16, 85 Harv.L.Rev. 994 (1972).
Respondent additionally argues that certain statements by the prosecution and the District Court's exclusion of purported expert testimony justify reversal of the verdict, and that the Court of Appeals' decision should be affirmed on those grounds. The Court of Appeals rejected respondent's challenge to the exclusion of the testimony of the proffered expert, 501 F.2d, at 150—151. Respondent did not present this issue or the question involving the challenged prosecutorial statements to this Court in a cross-petition for certiorari. Without questioning our jurisdiction to consider these alternative grounds for affirmance of the decision below, cf. Langnes v. Green, 282 U.S. 531, 538, 51 S.Ct. 243, 246, 75 L.Ed. 520 (1931); Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471, 475—476, n. 6, 90 S.Ct. 1153, 1156—1157, 25 L.Ed.2d 491 (1970); see generally Stern, When to Cross-Appeal or Cross-Petition—Certainty or Confusion?, 87 Harv.L.Rev. 763 (1974), we do not consider these contentions worthy of consideration. Each involves an issue that is committed to the trial court's discretion. In the absence of a strong suggestion of an abuse of that discretion or an indication that the issues are of sufficient general importance to justify the grant of certiorari we decline to entertain them.
Mr. Justice Jackson also emphasized that the witness statements involved in Hickman v. Taylor were neither evidence nor privileged. Id., at 516, 67 S.Ct., at 396. Indeed, most of the material described by the Court as falling under the work-product umbrella does not qualify as evidence. A lawyer's mental impressions are almost never evidence and out-of-court statements of witnesses are generally inadmissible hearsay. Such statements become evidence only when the witness testifies at trial, and are then usually impeachment evidence only. This case, of course, involves a situation in which the relevant witness was to testify and thus presents the question—not involved in Hickman v. Taylor whether prior statements should be disclosed under the trial judge's power over evidentiary matters at trial.
Shaw v. Wuttke, 28 Wis.2d 448, 454—456, 137 N.W.2d 649, 652—653 (1965); State ex rel. State Highway Comm'n v. Steinkraus, 76 N.M. 617, 620—621, 417 P.2d 431, 432—433 (1966); E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 24 F.R.D. 416 (Del.1959); United States v. Matles, 154 F.Supp. 574 (EDNY 1957); United States v. Sun Oil Co., 16 F.R.D. 533 (ED Pa.1954); United States v. Gates, 35 F.R.D. 524 (Colo.1964).
Vetter v. Lovett, 44 F.R.D. 465 (WD Tex.1968); McDonald v. Prowdley, 38 F.R.D. 1 (WD Mich.1965); Tannenbaum v. Walker, 16 F.R.D. 570 (ED Pa.1954); Fulton v. Swift, 43 F.R.D. 166 (Mont.1967); Republic Gear Co. v. Borg-Warner Corp., 381 F.2d 551, 557—558 (CA2 1967) (in camera inspection). Cf. Goosman v. A. Duie Pyle, Inc., 320 F.2d 45 (CA4 1963). For cases contra see 4 J. Moore, Federal Practice 1126.64(3) n. 14 (2d ed. 1974).
If the witness does not acknowledge making an inconsistent statement to the lawyer—even though the lawyer recorded it—the cross-examiner may not offer the document in evidence without at least calling the lawyer as a witness to authenticate the document and otherwise testify to the prior statement.
The cases have held records of witness statements made by prosecutors to be disclosable under 18 U.S.C. § 3500, United States v. Hilbrich, 341 F.2d 555 (CA7), cert. den., 381 U.S. 941, 85 S.Ct. 1775, 14 L.Ed.2d 704, reh. den., 382 U.S. 874, 86 S.Ct. 14, 15 L.Ed.2d 117 (1965), and 384 U.S. 1028, 86 S.Ct. 1906, 16 L.Ed.2d 1047 (1966); United States v. Aviles, 315 F.2d 186 (CA2 1963); Saunders v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 316 F.2d 346 (1963); United States v. Smaldone, 484 F.2d 311 (CA10 1973), cert. den., 415 U.S. 915, 94 S.Ct. 1411, 39 L.Ed.2d 469 (1974). Cf. Canaday v. United States, 354 F.2d 849 (CA8 1966). In State v. Bowen, 104 Ariz. 138, 449 P.2d 603 (1969), the court reached a contrary result under state law.
A conflict arose among lower federal courts over the question whether the work product of members of a litigation team other than the lawyer was protected from discovery by the rule of Hickman v. Taylor, supra. Ghent, Development, Since Hickman v. Taylor, of Attorney's 'Work Product' Doctrine, 35 A.L.R.3d 438—440 (§§ 7(a) and (b)) and 453—455 (§§ 15(a) and (b) (1971); Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Relating to Discovery, 48 F.R.D. 487, 501—502 (1970). With respect to discovery in civil cases under Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 26, the conflict was resolved in the 1970 amendments by affording protection to documents by a party's 'representative,' whether a lawyear or not. Where the purpose of the rule protecting the work product is to remove the incentive a party might otherwise have to rely solely on his opponent's preparation, it is sensible to treat preparation by an attorney and an investigator alike. However, the policy against lawyers testifying applies only to the lawyer who tries the case.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 2026
 § 652
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3500
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.