18 U.S.C. § 3500
Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses
1970—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 91–452, § 102(a), struck out “to an agent of the Government” after “(other than the defendant)”.
Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 91–452, § 102(b), substituted “subsection” for “paragraph”.
Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 91–452, § 102(c), (d), struck out “or” after “by him;” in par. (1), struck out “to an agent of the Government” after “said witness” in par. (2), and added par. (3).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3,021
cases (118 in the last 5 years), 1957–2026 · leading case: Goldberg v. United States
Goldberg v. United States (1976)
“This case presents important questions of construction and administration of the Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3500 . [1] *97 That statute provides that in a federal criminal prosecution, after a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court, on…”
United States v. Gary P. Neal, United States v. William F. Kenney, Jr., United States v. Charles J. Flynn, A/K/A Chucky (1994)
“18 U.S.C. § 3500 . Subsections (a) and (b) of the Act provide that prior statements are not subject to disclosure until the witness has testified on direct examination and are available only to the extent that the statements relate “to the subject matter as to which the witness…”
United States v. Sharon Jackson Anthony Mazyck, Also Known as Tony (2003)
“Both Johnson and Knapp involved waiver of a claim for disclosure of a witness’s prior statements under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 . In Johnson, the court held that the defendant waived his claim for disclosure of a witness’s prior statements because, although “he initially…”
March v. United States (1976)
“Appellant now challenges (1) the limitations placed on his cross-examination of the government's witnesses as a denial of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation; (2) the refusal to impose any sanction for the nonproduction of the detective's notes and the array of mugshots…”
United States v. Junaidu Savage (2018)
“First, he argues that the district court erred in denying his motion for judgment of acquittal based on insufficient evidence of bank fraud conspiracy.”
Moore v. United States (1976)
“The issue on appeal is whether the trial judge erred in refusing to impose the sanctions of the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (1970), by striking Gibbs' testimony when the government failed, upon request, to produce a police officer's notes which were taken in an interview…”
United States v. Mechanik (1986)
“At the time of his testimony, the Government furnished the defendants with a portion of the transcript of his grand jury testimony as required by the Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3500 . The transcript disclosed that Rinehart and his fellow agent, Randolph James, had testified in…”
United States v. Muwwakkil (2015)
“ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN ITS APPLICATION OF BOTH THE FEDERAL JENCKS ACT ( 18 U.S.C. § 3500 ) AND RULE FOR COURTS-MARTIAL 914.”
United States v. Denise Robertson (2018)
“nt; (2) the district court abused its discretion by failing to give a jury instruction on lost or destroyed evidence; (3) the district court erred in not imposing an appropriate sanction for the government’s violation of the court’s witness exclusion orders; (4) the district…”
United States v. Albert Jordan (2003)
“After a thorough examination of the record, we conclude that the court misapplied the rules established by Brady, Giglio, and the Jencks Act and that the prosecutor did nothing that justified the dismissal of the indictment, let alone the imposition of any other sanction.”
Middleton v. United States (1979)
“18 U.S.C. § 3500 (1970). Although the government surrendered a number of documents (see footnote 5, infra ), it countered with a request that the defense produce the report of its investigator who had interviewed several prospective government witnesses.”
Simmons v. United States (1968)
“Three of them identified Garrett as the second robber, the other two testifying that they did not get a good look at the second robber.”
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Isaacs (1972)
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b) — 8 cases
Malcolm v. United States (1975)
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Jarrie (1978)
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(d) — 1 case
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e) — 3 cases
March v. United States (1976)
“Appellant now challenges (1) the limitations placed on his cross-examination of the government's witnesses as a denial of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation; (2) the refusal to impose any sanction for the nonproduction of the detective's notes and the array of mugshots…”
Dalton v. United States (2013)
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Kelly (1997)
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Nelson Cruz (1973)
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Gary Minkin (1975)
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.