Document: 360 U.S. 367 79 S.Ct. 1231 3 L.Ed.2d 1304 Joel ROSENBERG, Petitioner,v.UNITED STATES of America. No. 451. Argued April 28, 1959. Decided June 22, Mr. Edward M. Dangel, Boston, Mass., for petitioner. Miss Beatrice Rosenberg, Washington, D.C., respondent. Justice FRANKFURTER delivered the opinion Court. 1 Petitioner was convicted in District Court Eastern Pennsylvania, 146 F.Supp. 555, transporting interstae c ommerce a check obtained by perpetration fraud to which he had been party. 18 U.S.C. § 2314, U.S.C.A. 2314. That conviction reversed Appeals Third Circuit on ground that Jencks v. United States, 353 657, 77 1007, 1103, decided after but before appeal, required production petitioner's inspection certain statements prosecutor's possession. Cir., 245 F.2d 870. The second trial thus ordered also resulted conviction, 157 654, sustained Circuit, 257 760, 762. We granted certiorari, 358 904, 233, 227, limited questions application rule this prosecution, effect statute enacted establishing legislative rules concerning documents, (Supp. V) 3500, and propriety ruling if judge erred failing deliver petitioner error harmless therefore not grounds reversal. 2 In trial, upon demand Federal Bureau Investigation files, States Attorney judge, turn gave counsel, numerous documents from Government's files. Many these would have be provided under either decision or subsequent it. complains few withheld were submitted his our failure give him opportunity requires today held Palermo 343, 1217, since its enactment governs government witnesses defendant's at trial. accordance with 3500(c), material preserved record permit review correctness judge's rulings. As did Appeals, we reviewed judge. Two are reports FBI investigators no sense complied subsection (e) statute. They neither signed nor otherwise adopted any witness they reproductions as statutorily statement made A third document comply such requirement. It is typewritten copy given Rosenberg's confessed associate crime, Meierdiercks, FBI. Meierdiercks contents pertinent case. However, original handwritten statement, was, already stated, merely copy, itself attorney. No relevant purpose could served giving counsel form, advantage denied withholding 4 last group controversy series letters written victim Florence Vossler her met requirement (e). six five clearly fail meet statutory only 'which relates subject matter has testified' need produced. 3500(b), 3500(b). These totally irrelevant proceedings. sixth letters, wrote Assistant memory dimmed three years passed perpetrated refresh she haveto reread first 5 fears events issue poor certainly 'relates testified 'and should defendant. This recognized Appeals. 763. court, however, found same information contained letter revealed cross-examination questioning record, portions reproduced an Appendix, precludes us rejecting judgment based conclusion require empty consequence. Since afforded defendant possession defense way witness' admissions while testifying, it deny reason entertain belief prejudiced having inspect letter. 6 An appellate court confidently guess what attorney might useful impeachment purposes entitled. when very possessed available committed, offend common fair administration justice order new There thing such. affirmed. 7 Affirmed. APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT 8 Singer. 'Miss Vossler, quite sometime you testified. Have within months so go over previous testimony reference matter? spoken anyone—' 9 Vossler. 'You mean I gave?' 10 'That correct.' 11 'The court?' 12 'Yes, June, 1956.' 13 'Yes. No, haven't seen anything.' seen—' 14 'Any testimony.' 15 '—the transcript testimony—' 16 'No, sir.' 17 '—which books like (indicating)?' no, Your Honor, nothing.' 19 'Well, agents Investigation?' 20 because January 24. had.' 21 'Have got you?' 22 haven't, now.' 23 'When see it?' 24 Bechtle asked leave upstairs.' 25 that?' 26 'Monday arrived here.' 27 'In other words, looked Monday?' 28 glanced Monday. didn't read line line.' 29 line?' 30 week, my home.' 31 'Last week statement—' 32 'Yes.' 33 '—of 24, say, 1955?' 34 came 35 'I see. Last week. You don't 36 all, time.' 37 Record, pp. 330—332. 38 Further evidence Vossler's loss clear recollection during course cross-examination. He identify McComb. 39 let me remember. McComb house one time—you see, always possible find names people who buy leases purchase leases—' 40 'May interrupt moment, please. all fairness witness, feel introduce report recollection.' 41 thank you. What number 42 'This Court's Exhibit 10, summary various And ask Page may properly answer questions.' 43 345—346. 44 BRENNAN, whom CHIEF JUSTICE, BLACK DOUGLAS join, dissenting. 45 case against rested Charles accomplice swindle concerns here, victim. testified, considerable detail, transported interstate commerce cashing corroborated extent, implicate impossible unless jury believed seems apparent Government put stand hope detailed corroboration Meierdiercks' story lend credence eyes swindler. If effectively impeached rely essentially uncorroborated conviction. 46 Defense moved end direct 'pertinent particular witness.' pursuant motion, delivery some include Attorney—handwritten shortly trial—which stated part: 'As fact, time goes on, am more hazy about whole transaction fare too well cross-examination, though here memory. will 1958 above took place; therefore, accurate day occurrences period, though, possibly help.' both agree examination, Command statute, 3500. holds, that: 'There such.' dissent plainly appears doctrine invoked circumstances 47 principle underlying fully aware possibilities inhering prior 'Because adequately equipped determine (its) * effective use discrediting thereby furthering accused's *.' pages 668—669, page 1013. 48 designed effectuate principle. delimiting turned defense, obviously comprehends producible must regardless how can appreciate their utiity impeachment. rationale case, Senate reported: 'the proposed legislation, presented, reaffirms Supreme holding criminal prosecution entitled competent touching activities S.Rep.No. 981, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 3; H.R.Rep.No. 700, 3, 4, U.S.Code Congressional Administrative News 1957, 1861. Although far those courts suggested never apply Bergman 253 933; Prince, 264 850, fidelity requires, think, justify finding denial harmful erroneous. determination, hesitant take themselves decide utilized statement. necessarily Jencks, affirmed which, repeat, 'only Indeed, another consideration move especially substitute strategy that, procedure established does present arguments showing prejudice withholding. 49 short, strict standard appropriate applying cases. Under standard, cannot conclude impeaching her. refreshed testifying previously, oral admission question failing. armed letter, probed deeply than testing refreshed. familiar lines entirely different At least bring myself assume 50 erroneously duplicated defense's possession;* unimportant proofs necessary conviction; wholly void key making raised serious detail circumstance, think second-guess faithful standards set ourselves federal casesuc h where utility denied. inquiry whether there enough support result, apart phase affected error. rather, even so, substantial influence. left grave doubt, stand.' Kotteakos 328 750, 765, 66 1239, 1248, 90 L.Ed. 1557. (Emphasis supplied.) 51 reverse typed discoverable copied.

Category: 0