Opinion ID: 719805
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Improper Redactions

Text: 23 After the conclusion of the trial, the defense discovered that the government had surreptitiously redacted portions of police reports it disclosed in pretrial discovery. The defense discovered this because defense counsel happened to receive the same report but unredacted in the course of representing an unrelated defendant in a separate matter. 24 Before trial, the defense sought all surveillance reports under the Jencks Act and Brady. The government admits that it redacted portions of surveillance reports and that [t]he deletions were not obvious from reviewing the redacted report because the paragraphs in question were 'whited out' to the end of the page and other paragraphs had been completely eliminated from the report provided to Cuevas, not simply 'whited out' or 'blacked out.'  In one instance, rather than blacking out certain information, the AUSA directed the investigator to regenerate a second official investigative report omitting that information. 25 The government's actions were entirely improper. Under the Jencks Act, the government did not have a right unilaterally to redact the reports. The Jencks Act provides that the United States shall produce any statement ... of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b). There are no exceptions to the Jencks rule that all statements relevant to the subject matter of the witness' testimony must be produced.... United States v. Bibbero, 749 F.2d 581, 585 (9th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1103, 105 S.Ct. 2330, 85 L.Ed.2d 847 (1985). The statement need relate only generally to the events and activities testified to by the witness to come within its sweep. Id. 26 Where, as here, 27 the United States claims that any statement ordered to be produced under this section contains matter which does not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order the United States to deliver such statement for the inspection of the court in camera. Upon such delivery the court shall excise the portions of such statement which do not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness. With such material excised, the court shall then direct delivery of such statement to the defendant for his use. 28 18 U.S.C. § 3500(c) (emphasis added). In other words, if the government believes a portion of a witness statement is irrelevant, the entire statement must be delivered to the court in camera for the court to decide whether a portion of the statement should be redacted. By unilaterally and surreptitiously excising portions of the police reports because the government believed they were irrelevant, the government violated this provision of the Jencks Act. The government appears to think it was entitled to do this so long as the excised material was not exculpatory under Brady, but this is not the case under the Jencks Act. 29 Moreover, the AUSA should not have redacted the reports in such a way that the defense could not tell that material had been redacted. We are shocked that an AUSA would consider it appropriate to instruct an investigator to redo an official report to remove paragraphs from that report, creating the misimpression that information is not being withheld. Even if the government had a right to redact certain information from the reports, which it did not, it should have crossed out the redacted material in a way that the defense knew there had been redactions and could, if it wished, challenge the redactions and preserve the record for appeal. 30 We are also troubled by the apparent lack of consistent, well-publicized discovery standards in the Office of the United States Attorney. As we have previously pointed out, One of the most important responsibilities of the United States Attorney and his senior deputies is ensuring that line attorneys are aware of the special ethical responsibilities of prosecutors, and that they resist the temptation to overreach. United States v. Kojayan, 8 F.3d 1315, 1325 (9th Cir.1993). At oral argument, we inquired of the AUSA (a different individual than the AUSA responsible for the discovery at trial) whether the practice of redacting documents that took place in this case was customary. The AUSA's response was that individual AUSAs utilize different procedures for withholding or providing partially redacted discovery materials. After consulting with her superiors, the AUSA has now informed us that the procedures utilized in this case were, in fact, aberrational; that they were determined to be improper at the time they were discovered; and that such a practice is neither customary nor sanctioned in this office. The United States Attorney has circulated a memorandum to all AUSAs reiterating its disapproval of such a practice. It is unfortunate that such guidance was not provided sooner. 31 Failure to disclose under the Jencks Act is subject to harmless error review. United States v. Ogbuehi, 18 F.3d 807, 811 (9th Cir.1994). Generally, when potential Jencks Act material is not disclosed and the district court did not conduct an in camera review, this court remands so the district court can determine in the first instance whether the statement should have been disclosed under the Jencks Act and whether any error was harmless. Id. Here, the district court reviewed the full, unredacted reports in camera in the context of ruling on Cuevas's motion for a new trial. The court concluded that the redacted information was immaterial, nonexculpatory, unrelated to the subject matter of the witnesses's testimony, and that any error was harmless. We have carefully reviewed the full reports and Cuevas's in camera submission, and we agree. The redacted information involves subsequent surveillance of other individuals and is unrelated to the agents' testimony at trial. Accordingly, the government's failure to follow proper Jencks Act procedures, while unsupportable, does not warrant reversal. 32