Crucial testimony against him was given by two paid undercover agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who stated on cross-examination that they made regular oral or written reports to the FBI on the matters about which they had testified.

Jencks moved for production of these reports in court for inspection by the judge with a view to their possible use by the petitioner in impeaching such testimony.

Further error was alleged because the jury had not been instructed on the affiliation, membership, and the credibility of the government informants who testified at trial against Jencks.

[4] (d.) The practice of producing government documents to the trial judge for his determination of relevancy and materiality, without a hearing involving the accused, is disapproved.

[5] (e.) Only after inspection of the reports by the accused, must the trial judge determine admissibility of the contents and the method to be employed for the elimination of parts immaterial or irrelevant.

[5] (f.) Criminal action must be dismissed when the Government, on the ground of privilege, elects not to comply with an order to produce, for the accused's inspection and for admission in evidence, relevant statements or reports in its possession of government witnesses touching the subject matter of their testimony at trial.

[7] (h.) The proper remedy in cases which the Government chooses not to disclose or produce documents it deems sensitive, or wants to keep private for security reasons is dismissal of the criminal charges.

Error is asserted by the trial judge of the petitioner's motions to direct the Government to produce these reports for inspection and use in cross-examining Matusow and Ford.

The Government also attached an Affidavit of Non-Communist Union Officer in which the petitioner had affirmed that he was not a member of the Communist Party.

It was testified one of the first acts Jencks performed as a union official was to meet with the Communist Party organizer for the area.

The testimony indicated there had been competing interests in the labor union, in which certain members had wanted to end all affiliation with any Communist organization.

It was in this context that Jencks filled out the affidavit required by the Taft-Hartley Act testifying that he was not a member of the Communist Party.

[17] Subsequently, Matusow began programs in New Mexico to applaud the Soviet Union for disarming, denouncing the United States as the aggressor in Korea, and calling for world peace.

It is unquestionably true that the protection of vital national interests may militate against public disclosure of documents in the Government's possession.

This court noted in United States v. Reynolds[8] that in criminal cases, "...the Government can invoke its evidentiary privileges only at the price of letting the defendant go free."

We hold that the criminal action must be dismissed when the Government, on the ground of privilege elects not to comply with an order to produce, for the accused's inspection and for admission into evidence, relevant statements or reports in its possession of government witnesses touching the subject matter of their testimony at trial.

[19] It instructs the federal courts, in criminal matters to require production of verbatim transcripts and other notes or documents related to testimony by government agents, employees or witnesses.