Opinion ID: 706003
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Request to Review Presentence Report

Text: 53 During the cross-examination of government witness Charlie Jacks, Teague asked the court for a copy of Jacks' presentence report to further test Jacks' credibility. The government objected to the request for the report. J.A. at 218. At side bar, Teague asked the court to look at the report in camera, but the district court denied Teague's request. J.A. at 220-21. Relying on Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 1196-97, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), Teague claims that the court committed reversible error in denying his request for access to Jacks' presentence report and in refusing to review the presentence report in camera for potential Brady material. 54 The regulation of discovery in criminal matters is committed to the discretion of the trial court. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(d). Thus, we review for abuse of discretion. 55 Although this court has not addressed this particular issue in a published decision, 3 the Fifth Circuit, in United States v. Trevino, 556 F.2d 1265, 1270 (5th Cir.1977) did address the issue of whether the Supreme Court's holding in Brady required a court, for due process reasons, to provide access for a defendant to a prosecution witness' presentence report. In Brady, the Court held that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment. 373 U.S. at 87, 83 S.Ct. at 1196-97. Recognizing that Brady was directed to suppression of available evidence by the prosecution, the Fifth Circuit distinguished the application of Brady to the facts in Trevino because a presentence report is a report to the court, compiled for the court's use in the sentencing process. Trevino, 556 F.2d at 1270; see Fed.R.Crim.P. 32(b). Thus, the Fifth Circuit declined to extend Brady 's reach by holding that a discovery motion addressed in effect to a court or its probation officer, rather than the prosecution, asking production of a witness' presentence report, must be granted under Brady 's authority. 556 F.2d at 1271; see United States v. Walker, 491 F.2d 236, 238 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 416 U.S. 990, 94 S.Ct. 2399, 40 L.Ed.2d 769 (1974). 56 We find the Fifth Circuit's reasoning in Trevino quite persuasive. Brady expressly applies to material evidence withheld from the defense by the prosecution. Neither Brady nor the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure mandate that a trial court produce a copy of a presentence report concerning a government witness, prepared for the court, to the defense upon request. Nor do they require a trial court to review such a report in camera for potential Brady material. Thus, we hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Teague's request.