Case Name: Irving M. SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1963-09-19
Citations: 323 F.2d 628
Docket Number: No. 17903
Parties: Irving M. SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 323
Pages: 628–628

Head Matter:
Irving M. SAUNDERS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 17903.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Aug. 20, 1963.
Decided Sept. 19, 1963.
Petition for Rehearing En Banc Denied Oct. 31, 1963.
Mr. Michael W. Mitchell, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), with whom Mr. George W. Shadoan, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court), was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. B. Michael Rauh, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Victor V/. Caputy, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Wilbur K. Miller, Bastían and McGowan, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
On Saunders's appeal from a robbery conviction, we remanded — without vacating the judgment of conviction — for the District Court to determine whether the Jencks Act required the production of certain papers he had demanded at his trial. Saunders v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 316 F.2d 346 (1963). In that opinion, our principal concern was with some notes taken by a Government attorney during a pre-trial interview with a Government witness. At the hearing on remand, these notes were produced, and the defense conceded they were riot required to be produced at trial. Also forthcoming at the hearing were certain police reports, some of which are characterized by the defense as "a reasonably accurate reproduction" of notes taken by the investigating officer which had been destroyed by him after trial. The District Court heard lengthy testimony with respect to the formulation of these documents, including the notes, and concluded that none was within the scope of the Jencks Act. We find no reason in the record for disturbing this conclusion.
Affirmed.
. 18 U.S.C. § 3500, 71 Stat. 595 (1957).