Jencks v. United States
353 U.S. 657 (1957)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A defendant in a federal criminal prosecution is entitled to inspect any statement or report made by a government witness to the FBI that touches upon the subject matter of their testimony. The government must produce these documents for the defendant's inspection upon request, and if it asserts a privilege and refuses, the criminal action must be dismissed.
Facts:
- Clinton Jencks was the president of the Amalgamated Bayard District Union, Local 890, of the International Union of Mine, Mill & Smelter Workers.
- On April 28, 1950, Jencks filed an affidavit with the National Labor Relations Board, as required by law, swearing that he was not a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party.
- The government's case that Jencks's affidavit was false relied on circumstantial evidence of his alleged Communist Party activities from 1946 through 1950.
- Two key government witnesses, J.W. Ford and Harvey Matusow, were paid FBI informants who were also members of the Communist Party.
- Ford testified that he and Jencks attended five secret Communist Party meetings together, where Jencks was appointed to the Party's State Board and helped formulate Party strategy.
- Matusow testified about conversations he had with Jencks at a ranch in the summer of 1950, where Jencks allegedly recruited him for the Party, praised the Soviet Union, and discussed Party activities.
- Both Ford and Matusow testified on cross-examination that they had regularly made oral and written reports to the FBI concerning the events and conversations they were testifying about.
Procedural Posture:
- Clinton Jencks was indicted in United States District Court on two counts of violating 18 U.S.C. § 1001 by filing a false non-Communist affidavit.
- During the trial, the court denied the defense's motions to compel the government to produce for inspection the FBI reports made by key witnesses Ford and Matusow.
- A jury in the trial court found Jencks guilty.
- The District Court denied Jencks's subsequent motion for a new trial.
- Jencks, as appellant, appealed his conviction and the denial of the new trial motion to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals' decision.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a criminal defendant have a right to inspect reports made to the FBI by key government witnesses concerning the subject matter of their testimony, without first showing an inconsistency between the reports and the testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
Yes. A criminal defendant is entitled to an order directing the government to produce for inspection all reports of its witnesses touching upon the subject matter of their testimony. Requiring an accused to first show a conflict between a witness's testimony and their prior reports is unjust, as the accused cannot know if a conflict exists without first inspecting the reports. The value of such reports for impeachment extends beyond flat contradictions to include omissions, contrasts in emphasis, or a different order of treatment. Because only the defense is adequately equipped to determine the effective use of these reports for discrediting a witness, it must be entitled to see them. If the government chooses to invoke a privilege and withhold relevant reports, the prosecution must be dismissed, as the government's duty to see that justice is done outweighs its interest in winning the case.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
No. The Court's new rule is foreign to federal jurisprudence and has no support in prior case law. It provides criminals a 'Roman holiday for rummaging through confidential information as well as vital national secrets,' potentially crippling the nation's intelligence and law enforcement agencies by opening their confidential files. The proper procedure, and what the defense originally requested, would be to have the trial judge examine the documents in camera to determine whether justice required their delivery to the defense. The majority's sweeping decision goes far beyond what is necessary and poses a grave threat to national security and the effective administration of justice.
Concurring - Mr. Justice Burton
Yes, the defendant laid a sufficient foundation for production, but the majority's broad and rigid rule is improper. The correct approach is not to create an absolute right of inspection for the defendant, but to vest discretion in the trial judge. The judge should examine the reports in camera to balance the defendant's need for the evidence against the government's legitimate interests in privilege and confidentiality. This procedure protects public interests while ensuring the accused receives all information necessary for a defense. I concur only in the result because the trial court's erroneous jury instructions regarding the definitions of 'membership' and 'affiliation' independently require a new trial.
Analysis:
The Jencks decision established a landmark principle in federal criminal discovery, significantly enhancing a defendant's ability to impeach government witnesses. It shifted the balance by granting the defense access to prior witness statements without the difficult, often impossible, prerequisite of proving inconsistency beforehand. The ruling was highly controversial, prompting immediate congressional action in the form of the Jencks Act (18 U.S.C. § 3500). This legislation codified the core holding but also limited its scope by defining what constitutes a 'statement' and re-establishing the trial judge's role in conducting an in camera review, thereby moderating the broad rule announced by the Court.
