Document: 422 U.S. 225 95 S.Ct. 2160 45 L.Ed.2d 141 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Robert Lee NOBLES. No. 74—634. Argued April 23, 1975. Decided June Syllabus During respondent's federal criminal trial, which resulted in a conviction, defense counsel sought to impeach the credibility of key prosecution witnesses by testimony investigator regarding statements previously obtained from investigator. When was called as witness, District Court stated that copy investigator's report, inspected and edited court camera so excise references matters not relevant such statements, would have be submitted for inspection at completion testimony. said he did intend produce ruled could testify about his interviews with witnesses. The Appeals, considering ruling reversible error, held both Fifth Amendment Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 16 prohibited disclosure condition imposed. Held: 1. In proper case, prosecution, well defense, can invoke judiciary's inherent power require production recorded witness facilitate full all facts. Here report might provide critical insight into issues raise hence highly issues. Pp. 230-232. 2. privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, being personal defendant, does extend or third parties trial. this instance fact were elicited on behalf convert them communications, requiring their no sense compel respondent himself extort communications him. 233-234. 3. Rule 16, whose language history indicate it addresses only pretrial discovery, imposes constraint Court's impeachment portions report. incorporates Jencks Act limitation shows contrary intent general trial court's broad discretion evidentiary questions 234-236. 4. qualified derived attorney work-product doctrine is available prevent investigative since respondent, electing present waived respect covered 236-240. 5. It within assure jury hear rather than truncated portion favorable ruling, contention, deprive him Sixth rights process cross-examination. That confer right free legitimate demands adversarial system cannot invoked justification presenting what been half-truth. 240-241. 501 F.2d 146, reversed. Paul L. Friedman, Washington, D.C., petitioner. Nicholas R. Allis, Los Angeles, Cal., respondent. Mr. Justice POWELL delivered opinion Court. 1 question presented here whether these circumstances may reveal prosecution's use cross-examining United States Appeals Ninth Circuit concluded cannot. 146. We granted certiorari, 419 1120, 801, 42 819 (1975), now reverse. 2 * Respondent tried convicted charges arising an armed robbery federally insured bank. significant evidence linking crime identification two witnesses, bank teller salesman who during robbery.1 offered alibi but, recognized, F.2d, 150, strongest centered around attempts discredit eyewitnesses. Defense efforts gave rise events led decision. 3 course preparing interviewed preserved essence those conversations written testified relied conducting Counsel asked recalled having told had seen back man identified replied remember making statement. He allowed, despite counsel's initial objection, refresh recollection referring prosecutor also allowed see briefly report.2 thereafter although indicated back, more continued insist robber. 4 other acknowledged cross-examination too spoken Respondent's twice inquired 'all blacks looked alike' him, each denied made again objected. declined order time, but required if witnesses' alleged stand.3 further advised examine reference precise issue. 5 After completed its witness. reiterated camera, Government witnesses.4 6 while acknowledging constituted 'very limited seemingly judicious restriction,' 151, nevertheless considered error. Citing v. Wright, 160 U.S.App.D.C. 57, 68, 489 1181, 1192 (1973), found imposed case. framed exclusively terms precluded prosecutorial discovery well. 157; accord, supra, 66—67, 1190—1191. respect, we think erred. II 7 dual aim our justice 'that guilt shall escape innocence suffer,' Berger States, 295 78, 88, 55 629, 633, 79 L.Ed. 1314 (1935). To end, placed confidence adversary system, entrusting primary responsibility developing facts determination made. See Nixon, 418 683, 709, 94 3090, 3108, 41 1039 (1974); Williams Florida, 399 82, 90 1893, 1896, 26 446 (1970); Elkins 364 206, 234, 80 1437, 1454, 1669 (1960) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 8 While depends primarily presentation exploration facts, judiciary role supervisor. Its processes stand before grand jury. supra; Kastigar 406 441, 443—444, 92 1653, 1655—1656, 32 212 (1972); Murphy Waterfront Comm'n, 378 52, 93—94, 84 1594, 1610 1611, 12 678 (1964) (White, concurring). As recently observed U.S., S.Ct., 3108: 9 'We elected employ contest law. need develop fundamental comprehensive. ends defeated judgments founded partial speculative very integrity judicial public depend framework rules evidence. ensure done, imperative function courts needed either defense.' 10 Decisions repeatedly recognized get benefit truth-finding enhanced. See, e.g., 353 657, 77 1007, 1103 (1957);5 Gordon 344 414, 73 369, 97 447 (1953); Goldman 316 129, 62 993, 86 1322 (1942); Palermo 360 343, 361, 1217, 1229, 1287 (1959) (Brennan, concurring result). At issue whether, call upon same 'full (relevant) facts.' 3108. 11 proposed evident witness' appearance individual considerably less clear earlier time appeared one differed even interview. contemporaneous raise. assist determining extent actually discredited If, example, failed mention purported statement alike,' disregard version altogether. On hand, contemporaneously tend strongly corroborate interview diminish substantially reliability identification.6 therefore apparent judge credibility. context, enhance 'the search truth,' 1896. must determine compelling some III A. 13 renders 'basically one-way street.' 154. Like many generalizations constitutional law, broad. relationship between accused's ability discover materials discriminating manner. 14 self-incrimination 'intimate one,' protects 'a private inner sanctum feeling thought proscribes state intrusion extract self-condemnation.' Couch 409 322, 327, 93 611, 615, 34 548 (1973); Bellis 417 85, 90—91, 2179, 2184—2185, 40 White, 322 694, 698, 64 1248, 1251, 88 1542 (1944). noted Couch, 328, 616, 'privilege privilege: adheres basically person, information incriminate him.'7 15 impinge values protected Amendment. allegedly defense. prepare there suggestion subject reflected any conveyed communications. Requiring thus conclude Appeals' reliance guarantee bar ordered misplaced. B 17 deprived report.8 Acknowledging appears control only, nonetheless determined Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, signaled intention should practice do agree. Both discovery. 16(f) requires motion filed 'within days after arraignment . reasonable later permit,' commands include relief movant. provision viewed light Advisory Committee's admonition designed encourage promptness filing enable district avoid unnecessary delay multiplication motions, Notes App., p. 4494, focus becomes apparent. Government's arises defendant has successfully under subsection (a)(2) (b) confined 'which intends trial.' 16(c). This hardly suggests limit once begun.9 Finally, emphasize character. Those notes characterize governing disclosure, never suggesting intended constrict over pp. 4493—4495. 19 incorporation provided express intent. restricts defendant's manner reconciles matters. certainly Cf. Giles Maryland, 386 66, 101, 87 793, 810, 737 (1967) (Fortas, judgment).10 conclude, therefore, extending IV 20 contends exempts agree applies litigation civil, find protection unavailable 21 doctrine, Hickman Taylor, 329 495, 67 385, 91 451 (1947), reflects strong 'public policy underlying orderly legal claims.' Id., 510, 393; id., 514—515, 395—396 (Jackson, observed: 22 'Historically, lawyer officer bound work advancement faithfully protecting rightful interests clients. performing various duties, however, essential certain degree privacy, opposing counsel. Proper preparation client's case assemble information, sift considers irrelevant theories plan strategy without undue needless interference. historical necessary way lawyers act jurisprudence promote protect clients' interests. reflected, course, interviews, memoranda, correspondence, briefs, mental impressions, beliefs, countless tangible intangible ways—aptly though roughly telrmed 'Work product lawyer.' Were open mere demand, much put down writing remain unwritten. An attorney's thoughts, heretofore inviolate, own. Inefficiency, unfairness sharp practices inevitably giving advice cases effect profession demoralizing. And clients cause poorly served.' Id.8 510—511, 393. 23 prepared 'acting client anticipation litigation.' 508, 392.11 generally J. Moore, Federal Practice 26.63 (2d ed. 1974); E. Cleary, McCormick Evidence 204—209 1972); Note, Developments Law—Discovery, 74 Harv.L.Rev. 940, 1027—1046 (1961). 24 Although most frequently asserted civil litigation, assuring functioning vital. society accused obtaining fair accurate resolution demand adequate safeguards thorough side case.12 25 core, shelters attorney, providing privileged area analyze But intensely practical one, grounded realities system. One attorneys often rely assistance investigators agents compilation material himself.13 Moreover, concerns disappear begun. Disclosure surely disrupt development not, undertake delineate scope existed protections. absolute. privileges, waived. adduce contrast contested Respondent, testimony.14 advance sustain unilateral testimonial elect own assert resist reasonably related brought out direct examination. McGautha California, 402 183, 215, 1471, 28 711 (1971).15 V 27 examination record persuades us properly exercised instance. authorized 'fishing expedition' files indeed 1181 (1973). Rather, quite scope, opening scrutiny offer afforded maximum opportunity avoiding unwarranted exercise informed choice thereby preclusion sanction entirely method compliance order. argument misconceives Washington Texas, 388 14, 19, 1920, 1923, 1019 (1967). merely prevented view adducing refusing disclose insights. system; Deciding, do, artificial effectuate judgment. Nor significance able exclude receive charge when refused, would, report.16 29 judgment 30 Judgment 31 DOUGLAS took part consideration decision WHITE, whom REHNQUIST joins, concurring. 33 I concur Parts II, III, write because misgivings meaning Part opinion. whatever otherwise had, lost interviews. With also. seems me sensible, decide first place reaching 'waiver' Accordingly, believe extended wholesale historic nonevidentiary unprecedented judge's matter add following. Up until almost party obtain 'limitation Ante, 236. problem discussed Taylor arose precisely because, addition accelerating adversary,1 new Rules Civil Procedure greatly expanded nature disclosure.2 Under Rules, was, entitled know opponent's opponent nonprivileged 'information existence whereabouts facts' 'information' itself evidentiary. 501, 389. Utilizing plaintiff lawsuit, 'to help make sure ha(d) overlooked nothing.' 513, 395 (emphasis added). concluding produced, treated involving plaintiff's entitlement Rules,3 carefully accordingly. view, 26, face unless they privileged. Nonetheless, expressly request 'not privileged' (although noting 'privilege' England, 393) concept used 'falls outside arena discovery.' 393 lawyer's (particularly strategy, theories, impressions) another 'demoralizing' profession. then admissible usable However, wanted shown reason why everything doing utilizing adversary. 35 conclusion 'privileged' difficult support result. Nothing expressed supported result, forced explain stating: 36 'When adopted, members contemplate opened adversaries.' 514, 395. (Emphasis added.) 37 am left firm conviction avoided easier route reason. evidence, Report Proposed Amendments Courts F.R.D. 433, 460 (1946), and, Jackson opinion, anything 'evidence case.' 515, 395.4 38 Since Congress, cases, commentators uniformly 'work product' solely privilege. 1970, Congress became involved area. accepting amendment Civ.Proc. incorporated explanatory statement, 7778; 48 487. area, enacted 3500 accepted former prevents Government; latter Neither limits prior trial.5 39 exception type infra, research uncovered application rule lower evidence—impeaching otherwise—at trial;6 are several examples rejecting approach.7 Similarly, discover, 26.63—26.64 C. Wright & Miller, 2026 2A W. Barron Holtzoff, 652 (Wright 1961), apply matter. F. James, 211 n. (1965); 16.23(8.—4) (1963). reasons largely confining compelling. First all, injury fact-finding far greater where keeps factfinder simply leads developed just himself. main, seeks 'substantial equivalent means,' 26(b)(3), i.e., interviewing A inconsistent Possession adversary, purposes—i.e., testifies—is purpose unique. By token, danger perceived will decline hopes eventually using adversary's absent take Indeed, articulate turned testified. consistent testimony, useless harmless; unquestioned value Any claim lead collateral confusing rejected (1957), legislation followed. negative implication requests holding supra. There argued, inter alia, violate "legitimate interest party—including Government—has safeguarding privacy files." 670, 1014. Government. deny 'deny defense,' 667, 1013 Also unrealistic demonstrate disclosure,8 'established reports relate witness.' 669, Thus, reject notion affirmatively kind entitled. 43 apply, notions insufficient material. 511, 394, stated: 44 mean say eye toward necessarily cases. Where hidden file one's had. Such documents might, circumstances, give clues location Or useful purposes corroboration.' Jackson, concurring, explicit point. 245. Pursuant language, came result trial.9 member team out-of-court someone testifies contradictory fashion moment witnesss event, cited above dictate event.10 inadmissible hearsay testifies, occasion ordering produced pretrial. likelihood become evidence.11 access unequal, regardless eventual statements. Relating Discovery, F.R.D., 501. 46 appear below, impose restrictions trial; way, party's pursuant devices; supply immunity event.12 47 aspects, majority opinions pains distinguish possession lawyer, orally lawyer. Production oral create substantial risk testify.13 'make ordinary 394. 'Every dislikes grave reasons. partly role; invariably poor steps professional character it. regrets it; discourages advocated force done stories, wants self-defense.' 517, 396. 49 courts, too, frowned tries permitted circumstances.14 50 remarks context lawyers' memoranda unnecessary, policies putting sum up outweigh jury's information; s expressing preference facts.15 creator memorandum investigator16 reverse below apart waiver, introduced arrest Robert Nobles subsequently knew FBI looking complained illegible. indicates, difficulty reading follows: '(If investigator) (the) contain impeached prosecution; nothing else 'If impeaching government look witnesses.' App. 31. containing teller's revealed marked identification, discussion arose, glance requested purportedly salesman. above, possible point contemplation given duty disclosure. pursue point, seek clarification failure urge ground reversal. maintain sufficed satisfy consider them. circumscribed so-called 3500. (1959). 612 entitles adverse inspect testifying. authorizes writings testifying deems justice. introduce applicability situation presented. 'The compelled information. Testimony demanded indeed, incriminating disclosed.' Maness Meyers, 449, 473—474, 584, 598, 574 (1975) 'testimonial communicative nature,' Schmerber 384 757, 761, 1826, 1830, 908 (1966); Wade, 218, 222, 1926, 1929, 1149 (1967); Gilbert 263, 1951, 1178 16(c), establishes reciprocal excepts 'reports, internal connection investigation prospective attorneys.' authorize amendments Criminal leave unchanged. Procedure, 271, 305—306 (1974). 16(g) notify additional Rule, contemplates obligation continue depends, previous parties' conduct note suggested directed Nakell, Discovery Prosecution—the Developing Constitutional Considerations, N.C.L.Rev. 437, 494 514 Rezneck, New 54 Geo.L.J. 1276, 1279, 1282 Prosecutorial 85 994 (1972). 392, distinct broader attorney-client number decisions applied protections alike. Arizona Bowen, 104 Ariz. 138, 449 P.2d 603, cert. denied, 396 912, 229, 188 (1969); State ex rel. Polley Superior Ct. Santa Cruz County, 81 127, 302 263 (1956); Peel 154 So.2d 910 (Fla.App.1963); re Grand Jury Proceedings (Duffy States), 473 840 (CA8 1973); Terkeltoub, 256 F.Supp. 683 (SDNY 1966). sole disagreed behalf. 487, 26.63(8) 1974). Necessarily, must. well, 16(b) (c); cf. 208 1972). What constitutes waiver circumstances. makes throughout notes, documents, adequately relies examining used, normally waiver. where, here, normal come play documents. accept contention violated effective predicated assumption similar compromise investigate thoroughly. maintains impair trust inhibit 'defense team' gathering American Bar Association Project Standards Justice, Function 3.1(a) (App.Draft 1971). short answer voluntary election concern voiced fails recognize conditional additionally argues exclusion expert justify reversal verdict, affirmed grounds. challenge proffered expert, 150—151. challenged cross-petition certiorari. Without questioning jurisdiction alternative grounds affirmance Langnes Green, 282 531, 538, 51 243, 246, 75 520 (1931); Dandridge Williams, 397 471, 475—476, 6, 1153, 1156—1157, 491 Stern, Cross-Appeal Cross-Petition—Certainty Confusion?, 763 (1974), contentions worthy consideration. Each involves committed discretion. absence abuse indication sufficient importance grant certiorari entertain factor great appear. permits through 17(c), subpoena judge. Prior basis nonprivileged. (they testifies); knowledge case; agent 26.63(3) 1974), therein. hold privileged, evidentiary, nondiscoverable anyway applicable rules. Walker Struthers, 273 Ill. 387, 112 N.E. 961 (1916). Jackson's concurrence states: relating aspects 'discovery." emphasized neither nor 516, described falling umbrella qualify impressions hearsay. usually only. presents question—not disclosed cites rule. 10, correctly 16(c) 'directed supplies better 'waiver.' cite 1966), referred preventing inquiring participated suborning perjury respects Compare 1973), Schwimmer 232 855 (CA8), 352 833, 48, 52 (1956). inquiry broad, example split authority IRS tax investigations. McKay, 372 174 (CA5 1967), Brown, 478 1038 (CA7 1973). Shaw Wuttke, Wis.2d 448, 454—456, 137 N.W.2d 649, 652—653 Highway Comm'n Steinkraus, 76 N.M. 617, 620—621, 431, 432—433 E.I. du Pont de Nemours Co. Phillips Petroleum Co., 416 (Del.1959); Matles, (EDNY 1957); Sun Oil 533 (ED Pa.1954); Gates, 524 (Colo.1964). quoted Chief Marshall Burr, Fed.Cas., 14,694, 187, 191 (Va.1807): "Now, paper opposite party, contents expected person claims production, knowing contents?" 668 12, 1013. Cummings Bell Telephone Pennsylvania, 373 Pa.1968); Marks Gas Service 168 487 (WD Mo.1958); Maginnis Westinghouse Electric Corp., 207 739 La.1962); Julius Hyman Motorists Ins. (Colo.1955); Parrett v Ford Motor Mo.1968); Scuderi Boston 463, 468 (Del.1964) (each witnessed event scene event); Bourget Employees (Conn.1969); McCullough Tool Pan Geo Atlas 490 (SD Tex.1966); O'Boyle Life North America, 299 704 Mo.1969). LaRocca Farm Mutual Automobile 278 Pa.1969), Kennedy Senyo, Pa.1971) (in suit); Natta Hogan, 392 686, 693 (CA10 1968); (1965). rest disclosable established ahead specific proof inconsistent. Vetter Lovett, 465 Tex.1968); McDonald Prowdley, Mich.1965); Tannenbaum Walker, 570 Fulton Swift, 166 (Mont.1967); Republic Gear Borg-Warner 381 551, 557—558 (CA2 1967) inspection). Goosman Duie Pyle, Inc., 320 (CA4 1963). For contra 1126.64(3) 'Moreover, protections.' 239. important document created produced. Of Insofar rules, ever suggest If means above-quoted acknowledge lawyer—even it—the cross-examiner least calling authenticate Porter, 139 429 203 Fiorillo, 376 180 1967); Gajewski 321 261 1963), den., 375 968, 486, (1964); Newman, 476 733 (CA3 Travelers Dykes, 747 Alu, 246 Chiarella, 184 903, modified rehearing, 187 1950), vacated petitioner, 341 946, 71 1004, 1370, petitioner sub nom. Stancin 956, 1009, 1377 (1951); Clancy, 276 617 1960), rev'd grounds, 365 312, 645, records prosecutors Hilbrich, 555 (CA7), 941, 1775, 704, reh. 382 874, 117 (1965), 1028, 1906, 1047 Aviles, 315 186 1963); Saunders 114 345, 346 (1963); Smaldone, 484 311 415 915, 1411, 469 Canaday 354 849 603 (1969), reached conflict among Ghent, Development, Attorney's Product' Doctrine, A.L.R.3d 438—440 (§§ 7(a) (b)) 453—455 15(a) (1971); 501—502 (1970). resolved 1970 affording 'representative,' lawyear not. remove incentive preparation, sensible treat

Category: 0