Legal Document

373 U.S. 487 83 Supreme Court Reporter 1356 10 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 501 Alvin R. CAMPBELL et al., Petitioners,v.UNITED STATES. Number 631. Argued April 25, 1963. Decided May 27, Melvin S. Louison, Taunton, Mass., and Lawrence Federal KF105 F3 O'Donnell, Boston, for petitioners. Archibald Cox, Sol. Gen., respondent. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered the opinion of Court. 1 This case, involving questions under so-called Jencks Act, 18 Code KF62 § 3500,1 is before second time. When it was first here, we held inadequate procedure employed by trial court ascertaining whether notes taken Agent John Toomey, Jr., at his interview with Dominic Staula—a key government witness petitioners' bank robbery—or Interview Report compiled Toomey from notes, were producible statements within meaning 3500(e)(1) or (e)(2). 365 85, 81 421, 5 428.2 We declined to order convictions vacated, but remanded 'to direction hold a new inquiry consistent this * (and) supplement record findings *.' U.S., 98—99, S.Ct., 428, 428. On remand judge hearing which not Staula testified. gave following testimony: day robbery he interviewed privately. depositor had been an eyewitness crime. took longhand interview, 'complete respect pertinent information' given Staula, although complete, word-for-word transcription what said. then recited back substance account, referring said that got straight. did read sign notes. About seven hours later after rearranging accord chronology Staula's dictated Report, relying primarily on also memory. After checking transcribed report against finding accurate, destroyed notes.3 2 basis testimony trial, neither nor Act. 206 F.Supp. 213. appeal, Appeals expressed dissatisfaction judge's conduct accepted ruling producible. 9 Cir., 296 Reporter, 2nd 527. However, status could be adequately determined without fresh Staula.4 Accordingly court, while retaining jurisdiction appeal generally, ordered further district other than judge, both testify, determination 'whether signed otherwise adopted approved notes.' Id., F.2d, 534. 3 At testified Toomey's told latter repeated him was, best knowledge, happened. amplified earlier testimony. concluded, 199 905, oral presentation 'not merely adhered (of notes) so far as practical precise words,' id., F.Supp., 906; presentation; 'almost in ipsissima verba narrative (Toomey) just checked Staula,' 907; therefore 'a written statement made him.' 3500(e)(1). 4 The filed supplemental copy such statement, hence come 303 747. granted certiorari leave proceed forma pauperis. 371 919, 295, 229. reverse. agree 3500(e)(1); consequently, do reach issues tendered petitioners.5 In Campbell I, posed frame remand: 6 'Did write down interview? If so, give paper over, make sure right,' (as trial) it? 7 'Was described paper? either ruled, would 'statement' subsection (e)(1).' 93, 426, 8 now know 'paper described' based Plainly, if making fact reading latter's adoption constitute him, namely, See versus Annunziato, 293 373, 382 (C.A.2d 1961); Aviles, 197 536, 556 (D.C.S.D.N.Y.1961).6 producibility seem depend upon answers two questions: version may fairly deemed Staula; think these properly are ones fact, disturbed unless clearly erroneous. 'Final decision production must rest, does very often procedural evidentiary matters, good sense experience guided standards have outlined, subject appropriately limited review appellate courts.' Palermo States, 360 343, 353, 79 1217, 1225, 1287. Cf. 360, 1228—1229, 1287 (concurring opinion); Hance 299 389, 397 (C.A.8th 1962); Thomas, 282 191 1960). 'The (is) proceeding necessary aid discharge responsibility laid enforce statute. statute implies duty affirmatively administer way can secure relevant available evidence 95, 427, To determine accuracy reproduced preeminently task nisi prius, appellate, court. It required ad hoc appraisal one 'myriad' 'possible permutations circumstance', supra, 1287, present cases; well depended nuances demeanor witnesses; concerned subject, rulings evidence, peculiarly province courts.7 For purpose applying clearly-erroneous standard instant deem controlling judge. As correctly held, conform our mandate & N Dec. Immigration Nationality Decisions because called testify; unsatisfactory respects.8 Moreover, contradict testimony, considerably more detailed. Also, perceive no basic inconsistency between factfindings those second, elaborate.9 Finally, having its them. 11 doing, implicitly concluded That conclusion surely sound. Although there small differences among presentation, seriously suggested material variance them.10 And entitled infer agent Bureau Investigation some 15 years' potential witness' sufficient obviate any need courts consider 'grossly unfair allow defense use impeach own.' 350, 1223, cannot say, therefore, erroneous.11 12 Our holding today only gives effect 'command (which) designed fair administration criminal justice 92, 425, 428.12 Petitioners—Alvin Arnold Campbell, brothers, Donald Lester—were convicted serious crime sentenced long prison terms. their four months robbery, three robbers. One, who worn white shirt short sleeves,' Record, 53, October Term 1960, Page 141, resembled Lester. Another, 'had blue suit,' 142, Campbell. third glimpsed '(a)t vault,' 170, describe. however states 'did observe man bank.' Of observe, wearing '(d)ark suit' '(w)hite shirt'; when asked remembered 'what kind shirt, any, suit wearing,' 148, answered: 'No, saw side. didn't see front him. shirt.' Ibid. description observed, mention sleeves'; 'wearing gray chino pants,' adds 'only observed Surely fairness federal procedure, Act enacted secure, demands reasonably found accurate own, impeachment purposes.13 13 judgment judgments conviction vacated,14 case proceedings opinion. 14 ordered. Judgment vacated directions. 16 CLARK, whom HARLAN STEWART join, dissenting. 17 FBI Agent, conducted 30-minute involved. Special they being answered jotted Upon completion orally refreshing memory so. He recitation correct received affirmative reply. noon. nine o'clock night dictating machine subsequent typing, using memory, dictation. typed secretary, working entirely transcription, holds 'oral recitation' (Staula) him,' purview reaches result via construction reminiscent Rube Goldberg cartoons, basing conclusions: (1) since 'it inconsistency'; (2) thereby 'reading' notes; (3) trhe reduced which, found, narrative' Staula. thus transmutes into strikes produced request defense. 19 conclusion, however, will bear analysis. Even though approval recitaiton arguendo recitation, nevertheless, 3500. agent, never form. applies witness.' least 'written statement' referred is, witness, final preparing rise dignity statement. They were, 'jottings' purposes formal report. These form, them himself initial recounted events described. true doing time time, clear included verbatim recitation. Every lawyer—indeed every layman experienced taking interviews—knows full extremely unlikely narratives, even prepared identical alike. Likewise common all us belies But cover agent's shown prior terms 'adoption' it. 20 reads court's presenting information comments words practical. contrary unequivocal.* simple answer has support record. addition, vital flaws inference—and is—that related stated 'anyone heard jottings same words.' (Emphasis supplied.) 907. overlooks limitation put word 'anyone,' i.e., anyone 'the knowledge case'; say words' twice language 'substantially thing' 'just ibid., seen Hence crystal concurring Judge Aldrich. said, noontime consolidation dictation evening, identity inferred court.' 747, 751. expertise rescue beyond credulity. 21 (1959), Congress felt 'be grossly t own rather product investigator's selections, interpretations, interpolations.' exactly today. Extension include reports mischief, permitting skillful lawyer repudiate destroy obstruct justice. dissent. provides part: '(b) direct examination, shall, motion defendant, produce hereinafter defined) possession relates matter entire contents relate shall directly defendant examination use. '(d) elects comply paragraph (b) (c) hereof deliver portion thereof direct, strike discretion interests require mistrial declared. '(e) term 'statement', used subsections (b), (c), (d) section relation means— '(1) him; '(2) stenographic, mechanical, electrical, recording, thereof, substantially recital Government recorded contemporaneously statement.' Specifically, nonadversary Report. directed attention question sanctions, appropriate developed survived. 98, 3500(d). released I. text 90 91, n. 3, 424, trial: 'I wrote me right. Now, am sure. couldn't remember before.' 89, 2, Toomey. issues, basically, 3500(e)(2) whether, destruction sanctions (d), permits secondary produced. recording 3500(e)(2). disagreed. denying rehearing, rendered attach bad faith. makes unnecessary fur intimate view correctness Appeals' settled, course, 3500(e)(1), 93—94, 425—426, 428; Bergman 253 933, 935, (C.A.6th 1958); cf. Allegrucci, 811, 813 (C.A.3d 1962), 191, 194 1960); H.R.Rep. 700, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 5—6 (1957); Note, Court, 1960 Term, 75 Harv.L.Rev. 40, 181—182 (1961), McCarthy, 301 796 Berry, 277 826 (C.A.7th admissibility rules separate questions, 826, 830 1960), obviously closely related. 'While technically itself permitted defendants cross-examine, restrictions imposed counsel crossexamination name only. spite special standing discussed Assistant Attorney immediately hearing, hovered constantly over like over-anxious mother. With correlation statements, eventual report, Court's directions non-adversary assist performing duty, honored largely breach.' 529. findings, issue follows: '3. repeeated refresh recollection, story '4. transcribe word.' 214. reproduction Apparently, nonproducibility legally erroneous supposition permissible mode adopting One Appeals, questioned District verba.' suggest, nor, think, record, suggested, example, descriptions robbers robber—the crucial portions purposes—differed slightest particular presentation. variances, apparently, grammatical syntactical changes, rearrangement chronological order, omissions additions immaterial purposes. copy, admissible independent purposes, destroyed. generally 382; 194—195. 'Every knows value impeaching dulls treacherous Flat contradiction test inconsistency. omission facts contrast emphasis facts, different treatment, cross-examining process testing credibility testimony.' 353 657, 667, 77 1007, 1013, 1103. 'reaffirms' supra. probative weight accorded testimony; triers facts. course nothing intended suggest showing prerequisite documents 667—668, 1012—1013, 1103; 3500(b). Understandably, contention refusal harmless error principles Rosenberg 367, 1231, 1304. Gordon 344 414, 73 369, 97 L.Ed. 447. 'Q. Did you, you 'A. concerning furnished me.' Cross-examination Transcript 4. your over? '(fol. 12) Atlantic not, sir. Staula? previously stated, verbatim.' 'THE COURT: went mean (fol. 54) WITNESS: No, sir, not. You looked said—you him? them? Honor. done that. There desk where people sitting? Yes. Your contained whole supplied correct. vital, wasn't it, story? method double check aloud get accurate—the future use, isn't Toomey? 55) Not exactly. witness. again, my right—that papers recorded—and whatever came papers, everything.' 19—20. experience, investigating most part meant thing you; 'MR. KOEN: pray Honor's judgment. Well, question. Now another wellspring regarding correct? back, effort 327) agreed sir.' Redirect 123.

Classification Label: 0