Opinion ID: 307719
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Government's Position versus the Trial Court's

Text: Reasoning 15 Turning now to the characterization of the trial judge's rationale by the Government, on the original appeal from the pretrial order suppressing all of Mrs. Middleton's testimony, the Government argued only two points: that the Jencks Act provided no sanction for the good faith loss of the grand jury minutes, and that the defendants suffered no prejudice due to this loss. There was no reference to the factor which appears to us from the transcript to have weighed most heavily in the trial judge's mind, i. e., the inherent contradictions and lack of veracity (in his opinion) of the witness' testimony. 16 On petition for rehearing the Government broadened the scope of its argument, urging that . . . in failing to overturn the decision of the District Court, the panel in the instant case has in effect imposed upon the Government a form of strict liability in regulating the maintenance of Jencks Act material. 18 We think this may be an incorrect characterization of the trial court's rationale. There was not necessarily a rule of strict liability in Judge Hart's decision, as he repeatedly both made reference to his own disbelief of the witness and weighed the importance of the testimony to the Government and defense, although he did say you must have the material and in all cases the loss of Jencks Act statements will bar the witness. 17 But the Government went even further in its petition for rehearing, and urged upon this court that we interpret the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Augenblick 19 and our decision in United States v. Bryant 20 as a blanket rule that in all cases a good faith loss of evidence or statements by the Government should not invoke the statutory sanctions of the Jencks Act, i. e., a rule of strict non-liability. We cannot agree with this as a proper rule for decision either.