Court Opinion

ID: 9447783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 22:44:26.119653+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:11.494370
License: Public Domain

On Petition for Rehearing.
We have considered the decision and opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Clancy v. United States, 81 S.Ct. 645, which is cited by defendants in their petition for rehearing. In the Clancy case, the defendants’ demand that memoranda prepared by government-agent witnesses be produced for their inspection pursuant to the provisions of the Jeneks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, was denied by the trial judge because the written memoranda in question had not been made “contemporaneously” with the conversations therein reported. The Supreme Court reversed a judgment of conviction upon the narrow ground that the trial judge had employed an improper standard of decision in his ruling upon the Jeneks Act request, inasmuch as that Act does not require, as a condition for compelling their production, that statements by government witnesses be made contemporaneously with conversations and interviews therein reported.
*725In the case at bar the trial court employed the correct statutory standard in his rulings upon defendants’ request for production of written statements and reports made by agent Sharp. The Clancy decision has no application here.
Although we did not so expressly state in our opinion in this case, government’s Exhibits 84-A and 84-C have been examined by the court. Exhibit 84-A consists of the complete, unexcised report of internal revenue agents which was signed by Sharp. Exhibit 84-C consists of the portions which were excised by the trial judge after his in camera, examination of that complete report. From our examination of those exhibits, we conclude that the materials contained in Exhibit 84-C were properly excised from Sharp’s report prior to the submission of that report to defendants for their inspection.
The petition for rehearing is denied.