United States v. Richard Edison Boyd, A/K/A Jake Boyd
42 Fed. R. Serv. 196, 53 F.3d 631, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 10144 (1995)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Jencks Act, a defendant must provide a reasonable foundation to show that a government witness's prior reports relate to the subject matter of their direct testimony before a district court is required to conduct an in camera inspection of those reports.
Facts:
- During the late 1980s, Richard Edison Boyd supplied large quantities of marijuana to James Todd Hibler in Maryland.
- Boyd obtained the marijuana from two sources in Texas: Manual Jaramillo and the brothers Joseph and Arthur Nieto.
- From December 1988 through November 1989, Boyd used middlemen, including Scott Jordan, to transport marijuana in quantities of forty to sixty pounds by truck from Texas to Maryland.
- During the investigation of the drug ring, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) Case Agent Dennis Howell prepared and signed approximately eleven reports.
- In April 1990, a fire destroyed Boyd's mobile home.
- On their 1990 joint federal income tax return, Boyd and his wife claimed significant casualty losses for furniture and personal assets they had acquired in 1988 and 1989, during the time of the charged conspiracies.
- According to a witness, Scott Jordan, Boyd personally used marijuana and cocaine during 1989.
Procedural Posture:
- On October 7, 1993, a grand jury indicted Richard Edison Boyd, Manual Jaramillo, Joseph Nieto, and Arthur Nieto for conspiracy and related drug offenses in a federal district court.
- Jaramillo pled guilty, and the grand jury returned a superseding indictment against the remaining defendants.
- Boyd and the Nieto brothers proceeded to a jury trial.
- After the jury was sworn, the Nieto brothers entered into a plea agreement and pled guilty.
- The trial proceeded against Boyd, and on November 8, 1993, the jury found him guilty on five counts.
- The district court sentenced Boyd to 78 months' imprisonment and four years of supervised release.
- Boyd (appellant) filed a timely appeal of his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
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 district court abuse its discretion by refusing to conduct an in camera inspection of a government agent's reports under the Jencks Act when the defendant fails to provide a foundation that the reports' contents relate to the agent's direct testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Hamilton
No, a district court does not abuse its discretion by refusing an in camera inspection of a government agent's reports where the defendant has failed to establish the necessary foundation under the Jencks Act. The Act requires the government to produce a witness's prior statement only if it 'relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified.' A defendant must first provide a foundation, typically through cross-examination, specifying with reasonable particularity that such a statement exists and is relevant to the direct testimony. Here, Agent Howell's direct testimony was narrowly limited to obtaining records and authenticating charts. Boyd's cross-examination strayed far beyond that scope and failed to elicit any information about the reports' contents that would connect them to Howell's direct testimony. Boyd's general request for an in camera review without this foundation was merely a 'fishing expedition,' which the Jencks Act does not authorize. The court also held that Boyd's tax return was admissible as relevant impeachment evidence to rebut his claim of living a modest lifestyle, not as improper character evidence under Fed. R. Evid. 404(b). Finally, testimony about Boyd's personal drug use was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) as proof of motive (to finance his drug habit) and to show the close nature of his relationship with his co-conspirator.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the procedural hurdles a defendant must overcome to compel production of government materials under the Jencks Act. It clarifies that a mere demand for documents is insufficient; the defense bears the burden of creating a specific factual record, usually through cross-examination, that links the requested material to the witness's direct testimony. This standard protects the government from broad 'fishing expeditions' into its investigative files and requires defendants to articulate a specific basis for their requests. The opinion also serves as a practical application of Federal Rules of Evidence 401, 403, and 404(b), demonstrating how evidence of other acts or financial status can be admitted for non-propensity purposes such as impeachment, motive, or establishing relationships between co-conspirators.
