Source: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/365/312
Timestamp: 2019-08-25 23:24:26
Document Index: 103551484

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3500', '§ 1001', '§ 7201', '§ 371', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500', '§ 3500']

Thomas D. CLANCY et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES. | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
365 U.S. 312 (81 S.Ct. 645, 5 L.Ed.2d 574)
Argued: Jan. 10, 1961.
This case presents an important question under 71 Stat. 595, 18 U.S.C. 3500, 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500, the statute sometimes referred to as the Jencks Act, as it deals with the problems presented in our decision by that name. Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657, 77 S.Ct. 1007, 1 L.Ed.2d 1103. Petitioners were charged with making false statements ( 18 U.S.C. 1001, 18 U.S.C.A. § 1001), with attempting to evade the wagering excise tax ( 26 U.S.C. 7201, 26 U.S.C.A. § 7201), and with conspiring to defraud the United States of internal revenue taxes ( 18 U.S.C. 371, 18 U.S.C.A. § 371). They were found guilty and the judgments of conviction were affirmed. 7 Cir., 276 F.2d 617. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 363 U.S. 836, 80 S.Ct. 1611, 4 L.Ed.2d 1723.
At the trial Minton, a government agent, testified concerning an interview with petitioner, Kastner, at which he was present. Minton testified 'I did not take any notes at the time, but afterwards I returned to the office and made a memorandum of the interview.' Counsel for Kastner asked the court for the production of that memorandum pursuant to the Jencks Act. 1
The trial court, though directing delivery to the defense of notes made by the witnesses at the time of the interviews, refused the requests for the memoranda, saying that written statements were not covered by the Jencks Act unless they were made 'contemporaneously' with the interview. The Government now concedes that this was an erroneous ruling, as indeed it was. Each of these statements related 'to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.' 2 Each was a 'statement' as that word is defined in the Act. 3 The requirement that it be contemporaneous applies only to 'a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement' made to a government agent. 4 By the terms of the Act, 5 'a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him' is also included. These statements fell in that category and should have been produced. Campbell v. United States, 365 U.S. 85, 81 S.Ct. 421, 5 L.Ed.2d 428. And see United States v. Sheer, 7 Cir., 278 F.2d 65, 67—68. As the Senate Report on the bill that became the Jencks Act states: 6
18 U.S.C. 3500(b), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500 (b), supra, note 1.
18 U.S.C. 3500(e), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500 (e), supra, note 1.
18 U.S.C. 3500(e)(2), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500(e)(2), supra, note 1.
18 U.S.C. 3500(e)(1), 18 U.S.C.A. § 3500(e)(1), supra, note 1.