Document: 425 U.S. 94 96 S.Ct. 1338 47 L.Ed.2d 603 Philip J. GOLDBERG, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES. No. 74-6293. Argued Jan. 14, 1976. Decided March 30, Syllabus During the course of petitioner's criminal trial, chief prosecution witness (Newman) indicated on cross-examination that certain dates he was interviewed by Government lawyers who took notes relating to Newman's forthcoming trial testimony, and Newman verified accuracy notes. Petitioner thereupon moved for production pursuant Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, which provides in a federal after called has testified direct examination, court defendant's motion shall order produce any "statement" its possession relates subject matter witness' testimony. In relevant part is defined as "a written statement made said signed or otherwise adopted approved him." 3500(e)(1). The judge denied ground material "the work product counsel" declined inspect camera. Court Appeals affirmed were not statements within meaning 3500(e). Held: 1. Any writing prepared lawyer testimony been "signed approved" producible under rendered nonproducible because wrote statement. Pp. 101-108. (a) Nothing language legislative history Act excepts lawyer's "work product" definition 101-102. (b) Nor limited an investigative agency distinguished from prosecutors preparing trial. Though Government's argument contrary based asserted unfairness allowing defense counsel impeach attorney's selections rather than his own, writings are only if they meet terms statutory definition; itself protects witnesses this unfairness; it also safeguards primary policy work-product doctrine protecting privacy mental processes. 102-106. (c) Production 3500(e)(1) will force such testify at Moreover, there clearly legitimate purpose disclosure, I. e., furtherance fair just administration justice," Campbell v. United States, 365 85, 92, 81 421, 425, 5 428, 434 (Campbell I ); become witnesses, since where can fairly be own; have no right call authenticate their 106-107. 2. circumstances case, erred making initial determination question statements. 373 487, 493, 83 1356, 1360, 10 501, 506 II ). 108-111. sufficient upon conduct inquiry into producibility material. Such now required determine whether should granted. I, supra, U.S., 98-99, S.Ct., L.Ed.2d, 438. 108-110. It necessary vacate conviction new rights fully protected remand material, supplementing record with findings, availability appellate review decide required. 110-111. Vacated remanded. Donald C. Smaltz, Los Angeles, Cal., petitioner. Paul L. Friedman, Washington, D. C., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 This case presents important questions construction 3500.1 That statute prosecution, States court, defendant, "statement," testified. 3500(e) pertinent is: "(1) 2 At District Arizona charges mail fraud violation 1341, sustained contention conversations key counsel," although had examined writings. Ninth Circuit but different ground. unpublished memorandum stated: "Apart exempt . 'work product,' (witness) 3500(e)."2 We granted certiorari question, 422 1006, 95 2627, 45 669.3 3 hold interviews writes "statement." further determining first instance "statements." therefore judgment proceedings consistent opinion, following procedure 428 (1961) 4 * Petitioner, Edwin S. three other codefendants, charged multiple-count indictment using mails defraud means fraudulent scheme, may briefly summarized. Financial Security Life Insurance Co., petitioner president, issued single-premium annuities various individuals; policies purported prepaid used collateral loans. Promissory accepted lieu premiums, interest money paid company. Further, misrepresented being free liens encumbrances. fact, valueless. concealed these facts lenders collateral; indeed, company refused payment proceeds nonpayment premiums. codefendants obtain "sales" inflate assets paper, intending eventually sell Of five defendants, worked agreed plead guilty single count witness. Thereupon severed prior trial.4 He witness, revealing great detail operation scheme transactions alleged indictment. all correspondence lenders, times acted instructions against consisted primarily 6 Prior covered seven weeks starting May 22, 1973, copy before grand jury, interview conducted postal inspector over years earlier, reporter's transcript two 11, 1973. 11 intended concerning transactions. June 27, disclosed met 13, 9 10, each day 16 through 27. Unlike meeting, reporter present. discussion, handwritten lawyers. Significantly, however, testified, speaking 13 interview: 7 "Q. And notes, did sometimes you about what make sure got down correctly? 8 "A. They have. don't really remember pattern." again, interviews, testified: As explaining discussing your anyone take notes? gentlemen 12 Were occasionally read back see correctly understood saying? Probably time time. 14 All right, sir. Did either correct them say, 'Yes, that's right,' 'No, went way, believe,' words effect? 15 Yes, would happen." Finally, described pattern followed remaining meetings 17 point moved, 3500(b), directing deliver defense. judge, without waiting hear Government, "attorney's product." renewed day, coupling request ordered camera inspection court. motions denied, leave submit support motions. Petitioner's argued existence exception delivery inspection. Thereafter, orally again On appeal, totaled 237 pages record, lodged Appeals. nothing constitute clear brief argues contrary;5 rather, principal seems event principles underlying suggest narrow include even though fits reject argument, plain statute, buttressed history, allows room tendered exception. 19 maintains given law enforcement agent during investigation, those attorney preparation rests original 3500(a), postponed discovery, until "to Government."6 But remotely suggests "an Government" excludes lawyers.7 event, 3500(b) requires "any (as hereinafter defined) States" limitation Government." Section defines one "made him" 20 Congress enacted limit scope Court's decision 353 657, 77 1007, 1103 (1957), involved Federal Bureau Investigation require agencies, 21 apparent history. Rather limiting, "reaffirms (Jencks ) holding defendant entitled competent reports touching events activities trial." S.Rep.No.981, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1957, pp. 1861, 1862. See H.R.Rep.No.700, (1957); 434. concerned, itself, "misinterpretations misunderstandings" application district courts appeals. Supra, 3-5, 7-12; 2-3, 6. concern misapplication permit defendants rove files." S.Rep.No.569, (1957). Palermo 360 343, 350, 79 1217, 1223, 1287, 1294 (1959). House committee expressed goal preventing "rummag(ing) confidential information containing matters public interest, safety, welfare, national security." 4.8 objective "rummaging" plainly adds meant distinctions occupation official whom gave statement.9 22 urges "primary reason" adopting unfair allow "could own investigator's selections, interpretations interpolations." 1294. short answer must produced extent "statements" defined; further, 3500(c) expressly excising 23 For same reasons, we merit that, exception, disclosure taken undermine rise doctrine. Nobles, 225, 236-239, 2160, 2169-2170, 141, 152-153 (1975); Hickman Taylor, 329 495, 67 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (47). Proper compel recordation impressions, personal beliefs, strategy, legal conclusions, anything else own" "If government recorded thoughts seem both come immunity fall 'statement.' " Saunders 114 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 349, 316 F.2d 346, 350 (1963) (Reed, J.).10 Furthermore, some reason "adopted strategy similar matter, excised examination. Thus, protection processes, 238, 2170, 153 adequately safeguarded itself. 24 contends "forces remembers saw fit write regarding witnesses' remarks." 513, 394, L.Ed., 463. Although risk supported approbation Hickman, nature provided differs significantly. concluded showing necessity strong enough justify requested disclosure: danger inaccuracy untrustworthiness, "(n)o purpose," use impeachment officer 51513, First, distorted lawyer, 352, 1224, 1295, Second, congressionally recognized Act. impeaching "is thus designed justice." 435. Third, "fairly own." cannot accept claims "authenticate" notes,11 nor do find realistic fear "feel impelled" stand.12 25 conclude bars Act.13 III 26 undertaking materials constituted If function ever properly undertaken appeals, attempted case. 27 objection documents hearing gather extrinsic evidence bearing 3500.14 92-93, 8S.Ct., 434-435; 354-355, 1225-1226, 1296-1297; cf. II, 506. unanimously obliged question. 95, 426, 436; id., 107-108, 432-433, 433 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting concurring result part). conclusion. raised inquiry, exempting attorneys' product," granted.15 28 highlighted developments our grant petition certiorari. Solicitor General discovered 40 himself.16 failure turn constitutes error requiring reversal more.17 conceding contain "statements," nevertheless producible. completing aid prosecution's produce,18 admits assertions record. remand. true claim contents deal largely, entirely, 29 remainder pages, issues resolved example, prosecutors' actually them.19 addition, consider motion.20 30 intimate view proper disposition redetermination think direction opinion. supplement findings enter final concludes reaffirm denial motion. preserve opportunity seek augmented hand, it, petitioner, harmless,21 accord 31 vacated, remanded 32 so ordered. 33 34 STEVENS, STEWART joins, concurring. 35 term describe could A major exclude kinds lower misinterpreted itself.1 like applies legitimately impeachment. 36 parts, encompassing originals (18 3500(e)(1)) verbatim substantially copies (§ 3500(e)(2)). Whether particular copy, unless reflects distortion.2 truly statement, form party prevent testifying inconsistent stated interviewer.3 37 Frequently narratives summaries drafted interviewer unequivocally prospective instances document equally layman lawyer. simply approval sufficiently unambiguous subsequent refresh recollection testimony.4 38 when outlining examination much character serve purpose. impressions proposed line questioning, comments references admissibility, theory, host matters. prosecutor's relate express prosecutor Nevertheless, perfectly "statement(s) (the) witness" short, more relevance kind factual narrative usable 39 comment, still specific note testify, contradiction, offered lengthy interrogation assented version said, finding note. Fairness demands stricter test confronted assertedly requirement satisfied ripe decision.5 possibility need appropriately authorize counsel. avoid unseemly and, importantly, portion witness.6 41 Since understand additional join 42 POWELL, THE CHIEF JUSTICE judgment. 43 Goldberg, extensive (Act), 3500. remands directions language: 44 "Newman's Require granted." Ante, 109 (emphasis added; footnote omitted). am general treatment agree Required producibility. Indeed, ruled insufficient relying privilege, Goldberg's separately my disagreement central raises Remand appropriate reasons voiced majority, concur 46 rested solely elicited cross-examination. entire set out margin.1 interchange "raised conduct" subsection (e)(1). time, purports recognize interviewer, routinely "Every will, course, involve conversation between necessarily inquire said. discussions substance adoption 3500(e)(1), 'signed approved' written. does back, read, written." 110-111, n. 19. 48 Compare ), 501 1287 view, fact frequently good believe "statements."2 light, evident cursory ambiguous wholly interrupt showed "discussions (had) said." 49 asked failed focus critical inquiry: embodied approved."3 conferences occurred several weeks, presumably taking conference. counsel, ask conference ones.4 meeting Newman, taken.5 session essence, substance" occurred.6 illuminating, slightly. Counsel "occasionally" commentary never reading merely discussion disputed understanding.7 problem created aimless unilluminating compounded counsel's satisfaction vague answers hardly evidenced own.8 50 generalized is, always required, rarely go related witnesses.9 Certainly importance. "needless confusing issues" approach encourages "assuring utmost fairness defendant" 355, 1226, 1297. 51 354, 1225, 1296, resolving Delineation procedures falls courts. To date, cases addressing concerned necessary. See, e. g., ibid.; (1961).10 But, shown above, faced judge. My adequacy foundational attention focused distinction. 52 burden protect placing basically adversary posture 3500(b).11 interrupted absent genuine them. Cf. 355,12 53 moving prove proceeding resolve issue.13 Rather, establish probative usually exist. speculative possibility. If, here, theory requirements (e)(1), "adoption approval" concurrence correctness understanding knows. Absent explicit satisfy burden, deny proceeding. 54 meets threshold exist, then nonadversary suited issue presented. 95-96, 426-427, 436-437; 1296-1297. judge's inadequate needed, proceedings. shown, affirmance appropriate. 55 conducting proceedings, appropriate, faithful substantive standards STEVENS (e)(1) relied "finding 116. depends having knowledge formalizing cross-examined. less "unambiguous" context. implicit subsections (e)(2). interests sought served 56 applying typical core Subsection includes "Written statement(s) him."14 (e)(2), "substantially verbatim" reproduction "oral contemporaneously." Typical selective episodic outside Even himself allegedly lack guarantees dependability concept (e)(2).15 These guarantees, noted, arise partly sense normally "going record"16 makes (e) (1) (e)(2).17 supply comparable guarantee know formalized statement.18 57 exacting standard Act's attempt assure well defendants. 1294; 436. every knows, conforms precisely exploratory often memory him reconstruct transpired long before.19 distill essence knows identify relevant. impeached arguable variation casually process. assent consciousness ready stand word nuance conveyed knowing formal honest reliable postured wrongly jury unduly handicaps efforts convict defendants.20 IV 58 Parts inquiry. showing. privilege presecutors' led reasonably carried mistaken privilege.21 reason, full: "(a) brought report (other defendant) subpena, "(b) After shall, directly use. "(c) section contains Upon excise portions With excised, procedure, withheld objects withholding, continued adjudication guilt text preserved available ruling Whenever section, discretion, recess "(d) elects comply hereof thereof direct, strike proceed discretion justice mistrial declared. "(e) 'statement,' (b), (c), (d) relation him; "(2) stenographic, mechanical, electrical, recording, transcription thereof, recital oral contemporaneously statement; "(3) however recorded, any, jury." Appeals' bracketed "defendant" "witness," apparently inadvertent. "limited Question presented petition," 669, reads follows: "Whether 'attorney's exception'; corrected same, 'only mutual situation' reached, compellable Brady vs. Maryland, (373 83, 1194, 215 (1963))." light result, address claim. 15, Infra. entered pleas. "We broad shelters obtained investigator. Witness formally recording beliefs attorney. implicates tangentially, all, underpinning doctrine." Brief 27-28. position suggested, Id., 19-20, 49-53, 32. phrase deleted 3500(a) 1970 amended add "statement". Pub.L. 91-452, 102, 84 Stat. 926. recognizes deletion expand cites Senator Javits "this bill agents, mean officials," 103 Cong.Rec. 15927 "(i)n common parlance considered 'enforcement official.' No justification advanced, none, excluding Department employees, others, category officials. weak reed rest argument. Javits' whatever given; responding officials respond materials: "MR. WATKINS. Suppose files marshal district. JAVITS. normal discovery rules apply, officials." Ibid. description "enforcement officials" crystal response willing say Senator: glad, myself, apply provisions Government. far, me, exactly voting for. do." assertion defense" totally none. contrary, agreement 3500(e), suggesting protected. 7-12 (1957) (statement Attorney Brownell). urged differ agents. attorney, argued, likely recollection, "highly individualistic matter." agent, greater completely, gathering facts, "raw data," others. Those arguments distinction respect cannot, face inclusive obligation title takes Infra, 106. persuaded acceptance "might reveal inner workings process thereby injure interest." There authentication already determined explain explanation meaningless asserts want contradict desire, told, repudiates Once found writings, repetitive excluded discretion. Fed.Rule Evid. 403. truthful vice versa, inconsistency, compelling motivation lawyer's, witness'. forcing eliminated construing "comparable signature." above. meaningful reading. Courts applicability uniformly reached J.); Aviles, 315 186, 191 (C.A.2 1963); Hilbrich, 341 555, 557 (C.A.7), cert. 381 941, 85 1775, 704 (1965); Smaldone, 484 311, 317 (C.A.10 1973), 415 915, 1411, 469 (1974). Some suggested "affirmative duty" secure evidence. E. U.S.App.D.C., 348, F.2d, 349; Chitwood, 457 676, 678 (CA6 1972); Keig, 320 634, 637 (CA7 Ogden 303 724, 734 (CA9 1962). Pending remand, decline examine initially task Judge. 3, deferred pending advised concession pertaining beyond certiorari, Supra. aware filing obviously cover full papers. circumstance treat subsumed Another parties' dispute rebuttal. Every 18, By noting dealt hope forth most significant intend issues, heretofore overlooked adduced proceeding, consideration. "speculate material) utilized effectively" Clancy 312, 316, 645, 648, 574, 577 (1961), harmless-error strictly applied cases. 497 1362, 509 Rosenberg 367, 371, 1231, 1234, 1304, 1307 (1959); 376, 1236, 1310; (Brennan, dissenting). Kotteakos 328 750, 765, 66 1239, 1248, 90 1557, 1566 (1946); Gordon 344 414, 422-423, 73 369, 374, 375, 97 447, 455 (1953). 2-3 345-346, 1221, 1291-1292. specifically distortion misrepresentation inherent selects portions, albeit accurately, interview. emphasized 3500(e)(2) unquestionably us 3500(e)(1): "It purposes deemed reflect agent. Distortion selectivity conscious inadvertent infusion recorder's opinions impressions. continuous congressional emphasis 'substantially recital,' 'continuous, verbatim, nearly .,' Appendix B, Post, p. 358, legislation eliminate recital. Quoting context frequent powerful modes misquotation. generally restrictive provision, substantial selection complete hence produced. Neither, agent's impressions." 352-353, 1295. typically tries many situations confront recalcitrant, forgetful, perjurious induce tell whole truth truth. deciding keep mind production. been, remain, practice FBI witnesses. vital insure tie signed." summary becomes Thus authenticated unnecessary words. apt said; ascertain Which approved. Normally answered basis colloquy presence jury. impairing usefulness evidence, Cambell 97, 427, 437, accordingly, real needed dispute. foreclose stand. stipulation qualify witness: "One motive forces behind enactment expansive undiscriminating regardless completeness. Not strongly feared memoranda might felt grossly 1223. So representatives 12, right? 12th. discuss here? Yes. Who with? Lebowitz, Keilp. jot wasn't present? pattern. (on 10)? Lebowitz Keilp? Was there? happen. 11th (of June)? Mondays far. 11th. Same talked them, BY MR. SMALTZ: When next came Phoenix? Saturday 16th. representative? procedure? questions, answers, read-backs, bit? "Yes, How representative 16th? Well, arriving Building little 1:00 o'clock. 17th? From so. since. you? me. Your honor, move the—" defendant. addressed arises seeks issue. Neither parties (e)(2) 3500(e)(2). too unfocused raise possibility, elicit type justifying length. sessions was: you?" saying?" ultimately 11. correctly?" latter essentially negative response: subsequently 12. sir." 5, foolish exceptionally talented depend preparatory conferences. Consequently, expected very infrequently. vary cryptic "memory jogs" anticipated necessitate submitted Attention opposed safeguarding papers accused 'statements' produced." An putting faith responsibilities presumed. 103-104, 430-431, 441 re-emphasizes needed. considerable amount consumed unusual diligent spend mastering details courtroom presentation 104-106, 431-432, 441-442, Frankfurter, joined Justices, nonverbatim rejected majority 93-94, 425-426, 435, reaffirmed (1963). majorities difference approval. rule administered sensitivity vast approving far text, 126-127. Statements dual ratifying. Interview ratification former safeguard. forgotten "witness States." 3500(b). ordinary impress probable much, "tie statement." aids memory. 370, 1233, especially record" (e)(3), governs "statement 3500(e)(3). Interestingly, somewhat way (e)(3) Presumably procedural formality increases. This, supports elaborated text. basic notion least core, contemplates finds (e)'s definitional approach. defining (d), "statement": chose language, unaware connotes views: absence unique powers recall repeat previously interviews. deviations indicate changes. Precision (E. present bank robbery occurred), variations inevitable one's articulation precise sequence events, exact actors witnesses). individual prosecutor. Without guidance order, fail care getting Again, area uncertainty. transcribe predictability goals originally production, Goldberg orally. transpired: "THE COURT: says compellable? No, sir, didn't not. Tell do, Smaltz. going ahead morning here least, told another ten days, weekend prepare give me Monday afternoon, look let's morning. Well Okay, I'm happy Honor, except you, ordering get together made, first. thank you. go."

Category: 0