Jencks v. United States

Supreme Court of the United States · 1957 · Evidence

Evidencewitness impeachmentgovernment reportsproduction of statementscross-examinationno preliminary showing of inconsistencyspecific documentsrelevancy and materiality

Facts

The Government's principal witnesses, Ford and Matusow, were Communist Party members who were paid by the FBI to make oral or written reports of Communist Party activities in which they participated. At trial, both testified about events and conversations involving petitioner, and both admitted on cross-examination that they had made reports to the FBI concerning those same events, though they could not clearly recall which reports were oral and which were written. Petitioner moved for production of the reports for inspection and use in cross-examining the witnesses, but the trial judge denied the motions. The Government opposed production solely on the ground that petitioner had not first shown inconsistency between the reports and the witnesses' testimony.

Issue

When government witnesses testify in a criminal case about events they previously reported to the FBI, must the Government produce those reports for the defendant's inspection and possible use in cross-examination without a preliminary showing that the reports contradict the testimony? If the Government claims privilege and refuses production, what is the consequence?

Rule

A criminal defendant need not lay a preliminary foundation of inconsistency to obtain production of specific government-held reports or statements made by government witnesses when those reports relate to the events and activities covered by their testimony. Relevancy and materiality for production and inspection are established when the reports are shown to relate to the witness's testimony, and if the Government elects not to comply with an order to produce such relevant statements on grounds of privilege, the criminal action must be dismissed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a federal fraud trial in Chicago, the prosecution's key witness, Nolan Price, is a paid undercover source who testifies about three meetings with Dana Reeves. On cross-examination, Nolan admits he gave written summaries to agents the same week describing those same meetings.

Dana moves for production of Nolan's summaries for use in cross-examination. The prosecutor argues the defense has not shown the summaries contradict Nolan's trial testimony. How should the court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a criminal defendant need not first show inconsistency to obtain specific government-held reports or statements of a government witness when those reports touch the events and activities covered by the witness's testimony. Relevancy and materiality for production are established by that relationship to the testimony, and the defense is entitled to inspect the reports to determine their effective use.