Opinion ID: 2403649
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Jencks Act Request

Text: Before the trial began, the prosecutor stated that all of the police paperwork that is completed in this case had been turned over to the defense. [6] Ms. Brunson later testified on direct examination that she told the police officers who responded to her 911 call exactly what I said here in court, and they wrote it down and they left. On cross-examination, Ms. Brunson was asked if she spoke with Prince George's County police officers. She replied that she called 911 from her home in Prince George's County and that uniformed police officers came to her home. [7] Ms. Brunson told the police officers what had happened during her trip to the Eastover Shopping Center, and one of the officers took notes of the incident on a flip pad, specifically writing down her description of the car, her name, and her telephone number at work. Hearing this, defense counsel requested that this police report be produced pursuant to the Jencks Act. During the ensuing bench conference, the prosecutor stated that the report was a Maryland report and was therefore not in my jurisdiction because he had no control over it. The prosecutor noted in addition that the Maryland police documents were equally accessible to both the defense and the United States. [8] The court responded that it did not matter which police department took the report or notes (it would be Jencks no matter who took it); all that the defense was required to do was to show that a substantially verbatim statement had been recorded. At the court's suggestion, defense counsel attempted to elicit testimony from Ms. Brunson which would demonstrate that substantially verbatim statements had been taken down by the police. Following this attempt, however, the court found that the police notes in question were not Jencks material because there was no indication that any substantially verbatim statement had been recorded by the Prince George's County police officers. [9] Consequently, the court denied defense counsel's Jencks Act request.