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

Quiros (D. Conn. 2026).

United States v. Rosario-Orangel (1st Cir. 2026).

United States v. Garcia (2d Cir. 2026).

United States v. Hunter Anderson (3rd Cir. 2026).

United States v. Specialist YORUBA J. JONES (A.C.C.A. 2026).

United States v. Maldonado (1st Cir. 2026).

U.S. v. (2d Cir. 2026).

United States v. William Michael Spearman (11th Cir. 2026).

United States v. Christopher Bendann (4th Cir. 2026).

Benson v. United States (W.D. Tenn. 2025). · cites it 2×

United States v. Lewis (5th Cir. 2025). · cites it 2×

Tullies (D.N.J. 2025). · cites it 2×

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).

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.