Opinion ID: 371005
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the jencks act issue

Text: 3 The Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 4 provides that after a government witness has testified on direct examination the defendant is entitled, on motion, to examine and use any statement of the witness that relates to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness. . . . 5 The statute defines statement as a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him . . . . 6 4 At the start of the trial defense counsel was given some Jencks Act material, and expressed his assent to the Government providing other material to the Court for an In camera inspection (Tr. Oct. 24, 1978, (Tr. I) 6). After the government witnesses testified, defense counsel requested the United States Attorney to produce any statements of the particular witness, as required by the Jencks Act (Id. 34-5, 95). When the Government refused to give him the prosecutor's notes, defense counsel requested The court to view them In camera as the Government had previously suggested (Id. 34, 6). The court then examined the notes In camera and ruled that they were not statements within the provision of the Jencks Act because they had not been adopted by the witness. (Id. 95). On this appeal appellants contend that the trial court erred in failing to conduct any hearing to determine whether the prosecutor's notes constituted a statement under the Jencks Act. However, the defense never requested a hearing but merely, as previously stated, requested that the court view the notes In camera. It also appears that counsel had an opportunity for all the hearing that would have been necessary. When the witnesses who gave the statements were on the stand counsel could have inquired whether they adopted, signed or otherwise approved any written statement made by them and thereby laid the foundation necessary to require production under the Jencks Act. We thus fail to find any error in the court's handling of the matter. 5 We have also examined the prosecutor's interview notes, which the court sealed. From such examination we similarly conclude that the notes were not required to be produced under the Jencks Act. The notes, are short, very cryptic, and only set forth a few references to scattered facts; they are incomplete and could do nothing more than jog the prosecutor's memory as to a few items. Accordingly, they fall far short of being statements. 6 In short, the court was able by merely examining the notes and recalling the witness' testimony to conclude that there was no showing that the notes constituted statements under the Jencks Act. In addition the notes are not signed by the witness and the defense never produced any evidence in cross-examination of the witnesses that either of them had adopted or approved the notes (Tr. I 38-70, 95-124). Therefore, the court's handling of the matter was not erroneous.