Opinion ID: 3047593
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Panel Majority’s Decision

Text: There is no dispute that the local police reports at issue qualify under Rule 16(a)(1)(E) as documents “material to preparing the defense.” Thus, the only question before the panel was whether the local police reports qualified as privileged work product. This required the panel to interpret Rule 16(a)(2): Information Not Subject to Disclosure. Except as Rule 16(a)(1) provides otherwise, this rule does not authorize the discovery or inspection of reports, 5 The interplay between these rules is thoughtfully explored by Judge Matsch in his discovery order from the capital trial of Timothy McVeigh. 2654 UNITED STATES v. FORT memoranda, or other internal government documents made by an attorney for the government or other government agent in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case. Nor does this rule authorize the discovery or inspection of statements made by prospective government witnesses except as pro- vided in 18 U.S.C. § 3500. Fed. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(2). “The meaning of Rule 16(a)(2) is so plain that it should be unnecessary to do anything more than simply read the text in order to conclude that it does not protect documents prepared by the San Francisco Police Department without any involvement by the federal government.” Fort, 472 F.3d at 1124 (W. Fletcher, J., dissenting). Nonetheless, the panel majority dissected the language of Rule 16 and imbued it with new meaning. The panel majority first concluded that the word “government” refers to the federal government. Id. at 1111. It then concluded that the term “ ‘government agent’ includes non-federal personnel whose work contributes to a federal criminal ‘case.’ ” Id. at 1113. Finally, it held that the phrase “in connection with investigating or prosecuting the case,” is so broad as to include any such work by any “government agent,” at any time, even before there is a federal case. Id. at 1119-20. This combination of rulings transforms local police officers involved in local investigations years before any federal prosecution was even contemplated into federal “government agents.” Id. As a result, all “reports, memoranda, or other internal government documents” generated by the San Francisco Police Department while investigating the Down Below Gang magically became material not subject to discovery under Rule 16 at all.6 6 There is no criminal discovery analog to the “substantial need” safety valve to compel discovery of “fact work product.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3). In the absence of a Jencks Act or Brady compulsion to divulge such materials, the only way a defendant can acquire them is through prosecutorial largesse. UNITED STATES v. FORT 2655