Jencks Act
The Jencks Act also covers other documents related to the testimony, or relied upon by government witnesses at trial.
Typically, the material may consist of police notes, memoranda, reports, summaries, letters, related to an indictment or verbatim transcripts used by government agents or employees to testify at trial.
[3] The usual remedy for failure of the government to produce the documents is a mistrial and dismissal of criminal charges against the defendant.
[4] The Jencks Act was enacted by the United States Congress in response to the 1957 Supreme Court decision in Jencks v. United States,[5] in which the Court established various rules for the availability and production of statements of prosecution witnesses in federal criminal trials.
During his trial, the government refused to produce documents relied upon by prosecution witnesses who were FBI informants, a move that prompted the passage of the act.
Clinton Jencks starred in the 1954 movie Salt of the Earth which was a dramatized version of his struggles organizing labor.
By the Act, Congress exercised its power to define the rules that should govern this particular area in the trial of criminal cases instead of leaving the matter of lawmaking to the courts.
[7] The Jencks Act is constitutional as an exercise of congressional power to prescribe rules of procedure for the federal courts.
[9][10] The Jencks Act governs production of statements and reports of prosecution witnesses during federal criminal trials.
If the entire contents of any such statement relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order it to be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.
[31] The Jencks Act provides that no material shall be subject to subpoena, discovery or inspection until the said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case.
[49] Investigator's notes made from memory several days after interviewing a witness are not "verbatim" under the meaning of the Act, and hence not subject to subpoena.
[53] A statement by a government witness before a grand jury is producible under Jencks Act to the extent that it relates to the subject matter of the trial testimony.
[59][60][61][62] Sometimes courts will hold an in-camera hearing to determine if the material is relevant under the Act, it is not necessary for the production of documents.
[63][64] It is generally necessary that the defense make a motion for the production of the prior statement of a government witness under the Jencks Act.
[79][80] A trial court's decision of what material must be produced under the Act is subject to review under the "clearly erroneous" standard.
[95] Material cannot be excluded simply because the prosecution claims it is a matter of internal security, or confidentiality of the information.
[103] If the prosecution elects not to comply with the order to produce Jencks Material, the court shall strike the testimony of the witness and continue with the trial.
[13][104] It is incumbent upon the defense to file a motion with the court that it believes that the failure of the prosecution to produce the document is a violation of the Jencks Act.
This is due to the notion that provisions which are purely procedural in nature should appear in the Rules, rather than in Title 18 of the United States Code.
[111] In United States v. Ellenbogen, 1965,[112] a prosecution for bribing a purchasing agent of the General Services Administration and for conspiring to commit similar offenses, wherein the purchasing agent pleaded guilty prior to the trial and was the principal witness for the government in the defendant's case, it was held that the trial court's refusal to allow the production of a signed sworn statement of the purchasing agent in which he explained in detail his similar unlawful dealings with bidders other than the defendant, on the ground that such statement had nothing to do with the present case, was error where on direct examination the agent was examined by the government on the point of such other dealings as covered in the requested statement.
The court said there was no reason why a statement that would support impeachment for bias and interest does not "relate" to the witness' testimony as much as a statement permitting impeachment for faulty memory as was involved in Rosenberg v. United States (see case supra), and that the word "relate" as used in the statute is not limited to factual narrative.
