United States v. Nobles
422 U.S. 225 (1975)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A federal court can compel a criminal defendant to produce relevant portions of a defense investigator's report for the prosecution's use in cross-examining the investigator if the defendant elects to present the investigator as a witness to testify about the subject matter contained in the report.
Facts:
- Robert Nobles was prosecuted for an armed robbery of a federally insured bank.
- The prosecution's case rested primarily on the identification testimony of two eyewitnesses, a bank teller and a salesman.
- In preparing the defense, an investigator interviewed both eyewitnesses and recorded the substance of their conversations in a written report.
- During cross-examination, Nobles' counsel used the investigator's report to challenge the witnesses' recollections of the robbery and statements they had made.
- Specifically, counsel asked the teller if he had told the investigator he only saw the robber's back, and asked the salesman if he had said that 'all blacks looked alike' to him.
- The defense then sought to call the investigator as a witness to testify about these prior inconsistent statements made by the prosecution's eyewitnesses.
Procedural Posture:
- Nobles was tried in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The trial court ruled that if the defense investigator testified, the defense would be required to produce the relevant portions of his report for the prosecution's review.
- After the defense counsel stated he would not produce the report, the trial court precluded the investigator from testifying about his interviews with the witnesses.
- Nobles was convicted by a jury.
- Nobles, as appellant, appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (intermediate appellate court).
- The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction, holding that the trial court's disclosure order violated the Fifth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.
- The United States, as petitioner, was granted a writ of certiorari by the U.S. Supreme Court.
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 federal trial court have the authority to compel a criminal defendant to produce relevant portions of a defense investigator's report for the prosecution's use in cross-examining the investigator, if the investigator testifies for the defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Powell
Yes. A federal trial court may compel the defense to reveal the relevant portions of its investigator’s report for the prosecution’s use in cross-examining that investigator. The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is personal to the defendant and does not extend to statements made by third-party witnesses, even when collected by a defense agent. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 governs pretrial discovery and does not limit a court's inherent power to manage evidentiary matters during trial. Finally, while the work-product doctrine applies in criminal cases, it is a qualified privilege that is waived when the defense elects to make testimonial use of the privileged material by calling the investigator as a witness. The defense cannot use the doctrine as both a sword to impeach and a shield to prevent cross-examination on the same material.
Concurring - Mr. Justice White
Yes. The trial court's order was proper, but the decision should not rest on waiver. The work-product doctrine of Hickman v. Taylor was created as a limitation on pre-trial discovery of an attorney's preparatory materials, not as a qualified evidentiary privilege to be used at trial. The doctrine was never intended to restrict a trial judge's power to compel the production of evidentiary matter, such as prior inconsistent statements used for impeachment, once a witness has testified. Because the investigator's report contained potential impeachment evidence and was not the attorney's own mental impressions, the work-product doctrine has no application here, and the court could order its production on evidentiary grounds alone.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that the pursuit of truth in the adversarial system can override certain conditional privileges. It establishes that discovery is not a 'one-way street' and that when the defense introduces evidence, it subjects that evidence to the truth-testing function of cross-examination. The ruling affirms the trial court's broad discretion to manage evidentiary presentations and prevents the defense from using the work-product doctrine to present a partial or potentially misleading version of the facts. This precedent significantly impacts trial strategy, forcing defense teams to weigh the benefits of calling an investigator to testify against the cost of disclosing their work product to the prosecution.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Nobles