Court Opinion

ID: 9426346
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:17:37.750106+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:00.427044
License: Public Domain

Me. Justice Powell,
with whom The Chief Justice joins, concurring in the judgment.
Petitioner, Philip Goldberg, moved that the prosecutors’ notes prepared during the extensive interviews with the witness Newman be produced pursuant to the Jencks Act (Act), 18 U. S. C. § 3500. The Court remands this case with directions that the trial court determine whether the prosecutors’ notes were "statements” within the meaning of the Act. This disposition is stated in the following language:
“Newman’s testimony raised a sufficient question under the Act to require the trial judge to conduct such an inquiry, and since we hold that the trial judge erred in exempting the material from production as attorneys’ ‘work product,’ a remand for such an inquiry by the District Court is required to determine whether petitioner’s motion should have *117been granted.” Ante, at 109 (emphasis added; footnote omitted).
I am in general accord with the Court’s treatment of the “work product” question, but I do not agree that Newman’s testimony required the trial judge to conduct an inquiry into producibility. Indeed, had the trial judge ruled that Newman’s testimony was insufficient to justify further inquiry, rather than relying on the “work product” privilege, I would have affirmed the denial of Goldberg’s motion. I write separately because my disagreement with the Court on this central point raises important questions about the proper administration of the Act. Remand is appropriate for reasons other than those voiced by the majority, however, and I concur in the Court’s judgment that the case should be remanded.
I
Goldberg’s motion rested solely on information elicited from Newman during cross-examination. The entire pertinent cross-examination is set out in the margin.1 *118The opinion of the Court concludes that the interchange in this limited cross-examination “raised a sufficient question under the Act to require the trial judge to conduct” *119an inquiry into whether the prosecutors’ notes were producible under subsection (e)(1). At the same time, the Court purports to recognize that interview notes, whether prepared by a prosecutor or by some other interviewer, are not routinely producible.
“Every witness interview will, of course, involve conversation between the lawyer and the witness, and the lawyer will necessarily inquire of the witness to be certain that he has correctly understood what the witness has said. Such discussions of the general substance of what the witness has said do not constitute adoption or approval of the lawyer’s notes within § 3500 (e)(1), which is satisfied only when the witness has 'signed or otherwise adopted or approved’ what the lawyer has written. This requirement clearly is not met when the lawyer does not read back, or the witness does not read, what the lawyer has written.” Ante, at 110-111, n. 19.
Compare Campbell v. United States, 365 U. S. 85 (1961) (Campbell I), and Campbell v. United States, 373 U. S. 487 (1963) (Campbell II), with Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343 (1959). In my view, the fact that interview notes frequently will not be produc*120ible means that collateral proceedings into their pro-ducibility should not be required unless there is good reason to believe they may be “statements.” 2 In this light, it is evident that Newman’s cursory and ambiguous testimony was wholly insufficient to require the judge to interrupt the trial and conduct a collateral inquiry, for it showed nothing more than “discussions of the general substance of what the witness [had] said.”
The questions asked simply failed to focus on the critical inquiry: whether a “statement” of the witness, embodied in the prosecutors’ notes, had been “adopted or approved.”3 The conferences with Newman occurred from time to time over several weeks, with the prosecutors presumably taking notes at each conference. Goldberg’s counsel, however, did not even ask whether notes were taken at the June 17 conference or at subsequent ones.4 As to the June 11 meeting with Newman, counsel only asked whether notes had been taken.5 The ques*121tions about the May 12 session were whether notes had been taken and, in essence, whether "discussions of the general substance” of the notes had occurred.6 The questions about the June 9 and 10 conferences and the June 16 session were more illuminating, but only slightly. Counsel did ask whether the notes had been read back “occasionally” for commentary by Newman, but he never asked whether Newman had adopted or approved any portion of the final version of the prosecutors’ notes or whether the reading back of the notes had merely elicited further discussion because Newman disputed the prosecutors’ understanding.7 The problem created by such aimless and unilluminating questions was compounded by counsel’s satisfaction with vague and ambiguous answers that hardly evidenced the criti*122cal statutory fact of specific adoption or approval of a statement as the witness’ own.8
A showing as generalized as this should never be sufficient to require the trial judge to conduct collateral proceedings on the producibility of prosecutors’ notes. If it is, collateral inquiry always will be required, for competent prosecutors rarely will go to trial without such “discussions of the general substance” with key witnesses and the related taking of notes to be used in the examination of such witnesses.9 Certainly this would be the case with a witness of Newman’s importance. The “needless trial of collateral and confusing issues” that the Court’s approach encourages is not necessary for “assuring the utmost fairness to a criminal defendant” in the administration of the Jencks Act. Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S., at 355.
II
In Palermo v. United States, supra, at 354, the Court recognized that the Act provides no procedure for resolving questions about whether a particular document is a “statement.” Delineation of appropriate procedures therefore falls to the courts. To date, the cases of this Court’s addressing procedures have been concerned with the nature of the collateral inquiry to be conducted by the trial judge when such inquiry is necessary. See, *123e. g., ibid.; Campbell I, 365 U. S. 85 (1961).10 But, as shown above, the nature of the collateral inquiry is not the initial question faced by the trial judge. He must first determine whether any collateral inquiry at all is necessary. My disagreement with the Court on the adequacy of Goldberg’s foundational showing in this case suggests that more attention should be focused on this distinction.
The proper administration of the Act requires that the defendant meet an initial burden of showing that collateral inquiry is necessary to protect his rights under the Act. The placing of such a burden on the defendant is consistent with the basically adversary posture of the Act, which requires production of “statements” only upon the defendant’s motion. See 18 U. S. C. § 3500 (b).11 This requirement also is appropriate because the trial should not be interrupted for collateral proceedings absent a genuine need for them. Cf. Palermo v. United States, supra, at 355.12
*124The burden on the moving defendant is not to prove the existence of a statutory “statement.” The purpose of the collateral proceeding is to resolve that issue.13 Rather, the burden is simply to establish by probative evidence — usually on cross-examination of the witness alleged to have given a statement — that there is reason to believe that a statutory “statement” may exist. Certainly more must be shown than a speculative possibility. If, as here, defendant’s theory is that a prosecutor’s notes meet the requirements of subsection (e)(1), questions must be asked the witness that focus on whether there was in fact an “adoption or approval” of a specific statement, rather than general concurrence in the correctness of the prosecutor's understanding of what the witness knows. Absent explicit answers to such questions that satisfy the defendant’s burden, the trial judge should deny the motion for production without a collateral proceeding.
If a moving defendant meets the threshold burden of showing that a statutory “statement” may exist, the judge then must conduct a nonadversary inquiry suited to resolve the particular issue presented. Campbell I, supra, at 95-96; Palermo v. United States, supra, at 354-355. If the trial judge’s inquiry is inadequate when inquiry is needed, it is appropriate for an appellate court to remand for further proceedings. In this case, however, the need for collateral proceedings was not *125shown, and if the trial judge had denied Goldberg's motion on this ground the affirmance of denial by the Court of Appeals would have been appropriate.
Ill
In conducting collateral proceedings, when appropriate, the trial judge must be faithful to the substantive standards of producibility embodied in the Act. I agree with Mr. Justice Stevens that when subsection (e)(1) is relied upon a prosecutor’s notes are producible only upon a “finding of unambiguous and specific approval” of specific notes. Ante, at 116. In my view, such a finding depends upon the witness’ having approved specific notes with the knowledge that he is formalizing a statement upon which he may be cross-examined. Nothing less is sufficiently “unambiguous” in this context. This requirement is implicit in the standards of produci-bility embodied in subsections (e)(1) and (e)(2). Moreover, the requirement is necessary to protect interests sought to be served bv the Act.
In applying the Act totypical interview notes alleged to have been “adopted or approved” by a witness, we must remember that such notes do not fit within the core of the Act. Subsection (e)(1) includes “written statement[s] made by [the] witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him.” 14 Subsec*126tion (e) (2), not relied upon in this case, requires a “substantially verbatim” reproduction of an “oral statement made by [the] witness and recorded contemporaneously.” Typical interview notes are selective — even episodic — and therefore fall outside of subsection (e)(2). Even if-“adopted or approved” by the witness, such notes were not written by the witness himself and therefore fall without the core of subsection (e)(1). Typical interview notes that allegedly have been “adopted or approved” thus lack important guarantees of dependability that Congress relied upon in the central concept of subsections (e)(1) and (e)(2).15 These guarantees, it should be noted, arise partly from the sense that a witness normally would have of “going on the record”16 when he makes a statement within the core of subsection (e)(1) or subsection (e)(2).17 It is to supply a compa-*127rabie guarantee of dependability that the witness should know he is adopting the interview notes as a formalized statement.18
This exacting standard is required by the Act’s attempt to assure fairness to witnesses and the Government as well as to defendants. See Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S., at 350; Campbell I, 365 U. S., at 95. As every trial lawyer knows, the testimony given in court rarely conforms precisely to what the witness *128has said prior to trial in interviews with counsel. This is true in part because lengthy exploratory interviews often are required to refresh the witness’ memory sufficiently to allow him to reconstruct events that may have transpired long before.19 Such interviews and the related note taking serve to distill the essence of what the witness knows and to identify the relevant. The Act was not designed to allow a witness to be impeached by every arguable variation between his trial testimony and notes written by the prosecutor and casually approved by the witness during this process. The witness may have expressed only general assent to the prosecutor’s understanding without any consciousness that he had to be ready to stand by every word in or nuance conveyed by the prosecutor’s notes. If notes are producible on a showing of less than knowing adoption as a formal statement, honest and reliable witnesses will be postured wrongly before the jury as having made inconsistent statements. This is unfair to the witness, and it unduly handicaps the Government’s efforts to convict guilty defendants.20
*129IV
For the reasons expressed in Parts I and II, the trial judge was entitled to deny Goldberg’s motion without conducting a collateral inquiry. But he did not deny the motion because of the insufficient foundational showing. Rather, he ruled that the “work product” privilege protected the prosecutors’ notes. Goldberg’s counsel may not have sought to supplement his foundational showing because he had been led reasonably to believe that he had carried the burden of showing the necessity of an inquiry, and that the judge’s denial was based solely on a mistaken view as to the “work product” privilege.21 For this reason, I concur in the judgment to remand.

 “Q. So you met with the Government representatives on May 12, is that right?
“A. Yes, I met with the Government on May 12th.
“Q. And did you discuss what your testimony would be here?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Who did you discuss it with?
“A. Mr. Lebowitz, Mr. Keilp.
“Q. And did they take notes or jot down anything at all of what you were saying?
“A. Yes.
“Q. There wasn’t a reporter present ?
“A. No.
“Q. And as they took notes, did they sometimes question you about what you had just said to make sure that they got it down correctly?
*118“A. They may have. I don’t really remember that that was part of the pattern.
“Q. Did you discuss your testimony [on June 9 and 10] ?
“A. With Mr. Lebowitz and Mr. Keilp ?
"Q. Yes.
“A. Yes.
“Q. Was a reporter there?
“A. No.
“Q. As you were explaining — or discussing your testimony, did anyone take notes?
“A. The two gentlemen took notes.
“Q. Were they occasionally read back to you to see whether or not they correctly understood what you were saying ? “A. Probably from time to time.
“Q. All right, sir. Did you either correct them or say, 'Yes, that’s right,’ or 'No, that’s not right because it went this way, I believe,’ words to that effect?
“A. Yes, that would happen.
“Q. Did you meet with them on the 11th [of June] ? Mondays have not been a court day thus far.
“A. Yes, I did meet with them on the 11th.
“Q. Same procedure, you talked with them, they write down what you are saying?
“A. Yes.
“Q. BY MR. SMALTZ: When was the next time you came back to Phoenix?
“A. Saturday the 16th.
“Q. Did you meet with the Government representative?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Same procedure?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Same questions, answers, read-backs, notes, whole bit?
“A. Yes, sir.
*119“Q. How long were you in conference with the Government representative on the 16th?
“A. Well, I have a recollection of arriving at the Federal Building a little after 1:00 o’clock. I think we met until 5 or 6.
“Q. How long on the 17th?
“A. From about 11 to 5 or so.
“Q. When was the next time that you met with Government representatives after the 17th?
“A. I have met with them during portions of each day since.
“Q. Did they go over your proposed testimony with you?
“A. Yes, they went over my testimony with me.
“MR. SMALTZ: Your honor, at this time, under 3500, I move for the — ”

 When the prosecutor is in possession of documents which he knows to be statutory “statements,” he is required to produce them upon the defendant’s motion without any showing on the part of the defendant. This opinion is addressed only to the problem that arises when the producibility of documents is disputed and the defendant seeks to obtain a collateral inquiry into the issue.

 Neither the Court nor the parties have considered whether the notes fall within the subsection (e) (2) definition of “a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness and recorded contemporaneously.” 18 U. S. C. §3500 (e)(2). The questions asked of Newman were too unfocused to raise that possibility, just as they were insufficient to elicit the type of information justifying inquiry into producibility under subsection (e)(1).

 The only question about the June 17 session related to its length. The only pertinent question about subsequent sessions was:
“Q. Did they go over your proposed testimony with you?”

 “Q. Same procedure, you talked with them, they write down what you are saying?”
Newman’s testimony ultimately suggested that there was in fact no meeting on June 11.

 “Q. And did they take notes or jot down anything at all of what you were saying?
“Q. And as they took notes, did they sometimes question you about what you had just said to make sure that they got it down correctly?”
The latter question elicited an essentially negative response:
“A. They may have. I don’t really remember that that was part of the pattern.”
Newman subsequently indicated that he met with the prosecutors on May 13 rather than May 12.

 “Q. Were they occasionally read back to you to see whether or not they correctly understood what you were saying?
“A. Probably from time to time.
“Q. All right, sir. Did you either correct them or say, ‘Yes, that’s right,’ or ‘No, that’s not right because it went this way, I believe,’ words to that effect?
“A. Yes, that would happen.
“Q. Same procedure?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Same questions, answers, read-backs, notes, whole bit?
“A. Yes, sir.”

 See, e. g., n. 5, supra.

 Indeed, only the foolish or exceptionally talented counsel will depend solely on his memory when preparing for the examination of a key witness. But the fact that counsel usually will take notes does not mean that the notes often will be “statements.” Counsel rarely take down verbatim what witnesses say in these preparatory conferences. Consequently, prosecutors’ notes may be expected to meet the requirements of subsection (e)(2) very infrequently. Cf. n. 3, supra. The notes taken will vary from cryptic “memory jogs” to full summaries of the anticipated testimony.

 Neither Palermo nor Campbell I raised the question of what foundational showing a defendant must make to necessitate collateral proceedings. In both cases the disputed documents had been submitted for the trial judge’s inspection. Attention in those cases therefore was focused on what the nature of collateral inquiry should be when such inquiry is appropriate.

 The adversary posture of the Act reflects “the directly opposed interests protected by the statute — the interest of the Government in safeguarding government papers from disclosure, and the interest of the accused in having the Government produce 'statements’ which the statute requires to be produced.” Campbell I, 365 U. S., at 95.

 An additional reason for putting such a burden on the moving defendant is that the Government’s good faith in meeting its responsibilities under the Act should be presumed. Cf. id., at 103-104 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting in part and concurring in result in part).

 The very nature of the question in a collateral inquiry into producibility under subsection (e) (1) re-emphasizes the need for the defendant to make a showing that such a proceeding is needed. A considerable amount of time could be consumed in determining the producibility of prosecutors’ notes, for it is not unusual for a diligent prosecutor to spend more time mastering the details of a key witness’ knowledge and anticipated testimony than is required in the courtroom presentation of such testimony.

 In Campbell I, supra, at 104-106, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, joined by three other Justices, expressed the view that nonverbatim interview notes were never producible under the Act because subsection^ (e) (1) was addressed only to documents written by the witness. This view was rejected by a majority of the Court, id., at 93-94, and the majority position was reaffirmed in Campbell II, 373 U. S. 487 (1963). The Campbell majorities properly recognized that there is little difference between a formal statement drafted by the witness and one drafted by the interviewer for the witness’ ap*126proval. But the rule in Campbell I and II cannot be administered without sensitivity to the vast difference between the witness’ approving a formally drafted statement and his approving far less formal interview notes. See the text, infra, at 126-127.

 Statements within the core of subsection (e)(1) have the dual guarantees of the witness’ writing and his ratifying. Interview notes brought within subsection (e) (1) solely by the witness' ratification lack the former safeguard.

 It should not be forgotten that the Act provides for disclosure only of statements made by a “witness called by the United States.” 18 U. S. C. §3500 (b). In the ordinary course the Government in taking “statements” of such witnesses will impress upon them the probable use of the statements. Congress recognized as much, noting that one reason the Government takes statements is to “tie the witness down so that he will stand by the statement.” H. R. Rep. No. 700, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1957). The Government also may be expected to make producible statements available to such witnesses as aids to memory. See Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U. S. 367, 370 (1959).

 A witness would have an especially strong sense of “going on the record” in the context of subsection (e)(3), which governs a “statement . . . made by [the] witness to a grand jury.” 18 U. S. C. *127§3500 (e)(3). Interestingly, Congress has required somewhat less in the way of recording safeguards under subsection (e) (3) than under subsections (e)(1) and (e)(2). See n. 18, infra. Presumably this is because procedural safeguards seem less necessary as the formality of the “statement” increases. This, of course, further supports the requirement elaborated in the text.

 The basic notion that the Act, at least at its core, contemplates a formalized statement finds additional support in subsection (e)’s definitional approach. In defining “statement” as used in subsections (b), (c), and (d), subsections (e)(1), (e)(2), and (e)(3) use the word “statement”:
“(e) The term ‘statement,’ as used in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section in relation to any witness called by the United States, means—
“(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him;
“(2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement; or
“(3) a statement, however taken or recorded, or a transcription thereof, if any, made by said witness to a grand jury.”
When it chose this language, Congress was not unaware that to lawyers “statement” connotes a formalized recordation of views:
“It has always been, and will remain, the practice of the FBI and every other Federal law enforcement agency to take written statements of important witnesses. This is vital not only to insure the accuracy of the statement at the time it is made but to tie the witness down so that he will stand by the statement which he has read and signed.” H. R. Rep. No. 700, supra, at 6.

 It also is true because in the absence of unique powers of recall no witness can repeat verbatim what he has said previously in long interviews. This is not to suggest that such deviations indicate that the basic substance of the witness’ testimony changes. Precision as to some facts may be expected (e. g., whether the witness was present when the bank robbery occurred), but some variations are inevitable in one’s memory — and the articulation thereof — with respect to details (e. g., the precise time sequence of collateral events, the exact words used by actors or other witnesses).

 Such a practice also would be unfair to the individual prosecutor. Without guidance as to what is producible he could never know which of his notes might be subject to court order, and he might well fail to take sufficient care in getting a witness’ focused approval. Again, in the core area of subsection (e)(1) and in subsection (e)(2) the prosecutor is not faced with such uncertainty. He knows, for example, that if he elects to record or transcribe an *129entire interview with a witness, the recording or transcription will be a subsection (e)(2) statement. Such predictability was one of the goals of the Act.

 On the day after the trial judge originally denied the motion for production, Goldberg renewed his motion for disclosure orally. The following colloquy transpired:
“THE COURT: . . . Did you find a case that says they are compellable?
“MR. SMALTZ: No, sir, but I didn’t find one that says they are not. And the Jencks Act—
“THE COURT: Tell you what you do, Mr. Smaltz. We are going to go ahead with the jury trial this morning and we are going to be here at least, from what you have both told me, another ten days, and over the weekend you can prepare whatever kind of a memorandum you want to give me on Monday that the Government can respond to Monday afternoon, and I will take a look at it and let’s go on with the jury trial this morning.
“MR. SMALTZ: Well, all right, but one other — Okay, I’m happy to do that, Your Honor, except would you, at least, consider ordering the Government to make available for your in camera inspection their notes?
“THE COURT: I will order the Government to get their notes together and have them available in case an order is made, and I will see your memorandum first.
“MR. SMALTZ: All right, sir, thank you. I am ready to go.”