Opinion ID: 670739
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Jencks Act Information

Text: 50 Knapp filed a broad pretrial discovery motion which, among other things, made a general request for the production of relevant written or recorded statements of potential government witnesses. In response, the government stated it would comply through its local open-file discovery policy, except for the prior testimony of grand jury witnesses which would be produced under the terms of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3500. 3 Based upon the government's response to Knapp's motion, Magistrate Judge Goodstein found his request moot. 51 Subsequent to filing his general discovery request, Knapp discovered that the government's open file did not contain the names of witnesses, their proposed testimony or other specific information he sought to acquire. Also, Knapp wanted to see Volume I of Special Agent Thomas Larson's report. When informed that Volume I of the report, as well as other specific information, was not part of the open file and would not be provided, Knapp filed an objection to the magistrate judge's Order. Knapp, therefore, was aware that access to Volume I of Larson's report was specifically denied to him by the government prior to trial. Knapp, however, did not request this report at trial following Larson's testimony. Now, on appeal, Knapp claims the failure to turn over the Larson report violates the Jencks Act. 52 Knapp contends the magistrate judge found his original discovery motion moot because he reasonably construed the government's response and its open-file discovery policy as an agreement that all discoverable materials are part of the open file and had been or would be provided to Knapp prior to trial. Knapp's contention appears to be based upon his subjective understanding of the scope of information available to him and his interpretation of the government's open file discovery policy. However, there is nothing in the record to support the inference that other specific Jencks Act material, not in the open file of the government, would be produced prior to trial under this policy, and, in fact, Knapp was so informed as it relates to Larson's report. 53 Knapp further argues that even though he failed to request the Larson report following Larson's testimony at trial, this issue falls directly within the holding of the Fifth Circuit in United States v. Newman, 849 F.2d 156 (5th Cir.1988), in that [w]here the government agrees to produce Jencks material before trial, the defendant does not have to move for the material at the close of each witness's testimony. Id. at 159. The government maintains, however, that there was no agreement to disclose Special Agent Larson's report as part of its open-file policy. The government contends Knapp knew its open file did not include Volume I of Special Agent Larson's report, knew of the government's pretrial refusal to produce it, but yet failed to specifically request that it be produced following Larson's direct testimony as required by the Jencks Act. 54 We agree with the government that the principle set forth by the Fifth Circuit in Newman is inapplicable here, because there is no showing that the government agreed that all Jencks Act material would be disclosed prior to trial, rather than only what was contained in the government's open file and the testimony of grand jury witnesses to be produced one day prior to trial. The general rule is that a defendant is required to request disclosure following the witness's direct testimony. See United States v. Mack, 892 F.2d 134, 137 (1st Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 859, 111 S.Ct. 162, 112 L.Ed.2d 127 (1990); United States v. Petito, 671 F.2d 68, 73-74 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 824, 103 S.Ct. 56, 74 L.Ed.2d 60 (1982); United States v. Lyman, 592 F.2d 496, 498-99 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 442 U.S. 931, 99 S.Ct. 2864, 61 L.Ed.2d 300 (1979); see also United States v. Spatuzza, 331 F.2d 214, 218 (7th Cir.) (defendant must request production of materials under Jencks Act), cert. denied, 379 U.S. 829, 85 S.Ct. 58, 13 L.Ed.2d 38 (1964). Consequently, Knapp's failure to request Larson's report following Larson's direct testimony in these circumstances waived any issue of error relating to the government's failure to produce the report.