Court Opinion

ID: 9466201
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 01:07:55.732726+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:39:35.746371
License: Public Domain

KILKENNY, Circuit Judge,
specially concurring:
I disagree only with the majority’s view that the witness Nielsen’s testimony would not be admissible on the trial of the case. Consequently, I would not expand the rule stated in United States v. Harris, 543 F.2d 1247, 1253 (CA9 1976), and in United States v. Robinson, 546 F.2d 309 (CA9 1976), cert. denied 430 U.S. 918, 97 S.Ct. 1333, 51 L.Ed.2d 596 (1977), to include rough notes made by a government agent in recording his observations during a surveillance of a defendant’s activities. In my opinion, the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, was never intended to cover the type of notes prepared and later destroyed by Nielsen.
Furthermore, it is my view that neither Harris nor Robinson forecast the result here reached by the majority. For that reason, the new rule here announced by the majority should not be given retroactive application.
Otherwise, I fully concur in the majority opinion.