U.S. Code » Title 18 » Part PART II— CRIMINAL PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 223— WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE

18 U.S.C. § 3500

Demands for production of statements and reports of witnesses

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 18 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In any criminal prosecution brought by the United States, no statement or report in the possession of the United States which was made by a Government witness or prospective Government witness (other than the defendant) shall be the subject of subpena, discovery, or inspection until said witness has testified on direct examination in the trial of the case.(b) After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. If the entire contents of any such statement relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order it to be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.(c) If the United States claims that any statement ordered to be produced under this section contains matter which does not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order the United States to deliver such statement for the inspection of the court in camera. Upon such delivery the court shall excise the portions of such statement which do not relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness. With such material excised, the court shall then direct delivery of such statement to the defendant for his use. If, pursuant to such procedure, any portion of such statement is withheld from the defendant and the defendant objects to such withholding, and the trial is continued to an adjudication of the guilt of the defendant, the entire text of such statement shall be preserved by the United States and, in the event the defendant appeals, shall be made available to the appellate court for the purpose of determining the correctness of the ruling of the trial judge. Whenever any statement is delivered to a defendant pursuant to this section, the court in its discretion, upon application of said defendant, may recess proceedings in the trial for such time as it may determine to be reasonably required for the examination of such statement by said defendant and his preparation for its use in the trial.(d) If the United States elects not to comply with an order of the court under subsection (b) or (c) hereof to deliver to the defendant any such statement, or such portion thereof as the court may direct, the court shall strike from the record the testimony of the witness, and the trial shall proceed unless the court in its discretion shall determine that the interests of justice require that a mistrial be declared.(e) The term “statement”, as used in subsections (b), (c), and (d) of this section in relation to any witness called by the United States, means—(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him;(2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement; or(3) a statement, however taken or recorded, or a transcription thereof, if any, made by said witness to a grand jury.(Added Pub. L. 85–269, Sept. 2, 1957, 71 Stat. 595; amended Pub. L. 91–452, title I, § 102, Oct. 15, 1970, 84 Stat. 926.)Editorial NotesAmendments

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, 425 U.S. 94 (1976).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94 (1976). · cites it 17× “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, 36 F.3d 1190 (1st Cir. 1994). · cites it 13× “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, 345 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2003). · cites it 10× “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, 362 A.2d 691 (D.C. 1976). · cites it 17× “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, 885 F.3d 212 (4th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “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, 353 A.2d 16 (D.C. 1976). · cites it 18× “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, 475 U.S. 66 (1986). · cites it 6× “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, 74 M.J. 187 (C.A.A.F. 2015). · cites it 14× “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, 895 F.3d 1206 (9th Cir. 2018). · cites it 4× “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, 316 F.3d 1215 (11th Cir. 2003). · cites it 8× “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, 401 A.2d 109 (D.C. 1979). · cites it 12× “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, 390 U.S. 377 (1968). · cites it 6× “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.”
Show all 3,021 citing cases →
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(a) — 3 cases
United States v. Henry C. Percevault, 490 F.2d 126 (2d Cir. 1974).
United States v. Thomas W. Bishton, 463 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1972).
United States v. Isaacs, 351 F. Supp. 1323 (N.D. Ill. 1972).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(b) — 8 cases
United States v. Ubaldo Trevino & Ramiro Gonzalez, 556 F.2d 1265 (5th Cir. 1977).
United States v. Richard Edison Boyd, A/K/A Jake Boyd, 53 F.3d 631 (4th Cir. 1995).
United States v. Daniel Judon, 567 F.2d 1289 (5th Cir. 1978).
United States v. Donald De Simone & Philip Caruso, 452 F.2d 554 (5th Cir. 1972).
Malcolm v. United States, 332 A.2d 917 (D.C. 1975).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(c) — 2 cases
United States v. Evaristo Rivera Pedin, Raymond Arrastia, 861 F.2d 1522 (11th Cir. 1988).
United States v. Jarrie, 5 M.J. 193 (1978).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(d) — 1 case
United States v. Vincent Principe, Sr., 499 F.2d 1135 (1st Cir. 1974).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e) — 3 cases
March v. United States, 362 A.2d 691 (D.C. 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, 58 A.3d 1005 (D.C. 2013).
United States v. Manuel Zurita, 369 F.2d 474 (7th Cir. 1966).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(1) — 2 cases
United States v. Samuel Robert Sink & John Edward Grim, Jr., 586 F.2d 1041 (5th Cir. 1978).
United States v. Kelly (4th Cir. 1997).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(2) — 1 case
United States v. Nelson Cruz, 478 F.2d 408 (5th Cir. 1973).
— 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(3) — 1 case
United States v. Gary Minkin, 504 F.2d 350 (8th Cir. 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.