HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675.jpg
2.11 MB
Extraction Summary
8
People
3
Organizations
1
Locations
0
Events
1
Relationships
5
Quotes
Document Information
Type:
Legal document / congressional exhibit
File Size:
2.11 MB
Summary
This document is a page from a legal filing submitted by attorney David Schoen to the House Oversight Committee (Bates stamped HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675). It contains an excerpt from a 2007 Utah Law Review article discussing the Jencks Act and Rule 16, specifically arguing that criminal defendants do not have a right to pre-trial discovery of government witness names (including victims) in order to prevent witness tampering and intimidation. The text cites numerous federal cases to support the argument that witness lists are generally protected from early disclosure.
People (8)
| Name | Role | Context |
|---|---|---|
| David Schoen | Attorney / Submitter |
Name appears in footer, indicating he submitted this document, likely to the House Oversight Committee.
|
| Hutchings | Defendant in case law |
Cited in United States v. Hutchings regarding Rule 16(a).
|
| Susskind | Defendant in case law |
Cited in footnote 328.
|
| Martinez | Defendant in case law |
Cited in footnote 329.
|
| Bobadilla-Lopez | Defendant in case law |
Cited in footnote 330.
|
| Tarantino | Defendant in case law |
Cited in footnote 331.
|
| Presser | Defendant in case law |
Cited in footnote 335.
|
| Laurins | Defendant in case law |
Cited in footnote 337.
|
Organizations (3)
| Name | Type | Context |
|---|---|---|
| Utah Law Review |
Source of the text excerpt (2007 Utah L. Rev. 861).
|
|
| House Oversight Committee |
Implied by Bates stamp 'HOUSE_OVERSIGHT'.
|
|
| United States Court of Appeals |
Various circuits (5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, D.C., 2d) cited in footnotes.
|
Locations (1)
| Location | Context |
|---|---|
|
Northern District of California, mentioned in citation.
|
Relationships (1)
Footer contains David Schoen's name and House Oversight Bates stamp.
Key Quotes (5)
"Jencks Act protection is not limited to situations where the government shows an actual danger to witnesses - its witness-protective qualities reach much further."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675.jpg
Quote #1
"Current law provides no basis for the pretrial disclosure of the names and addresses of government witnesses - including witnesses who are crime victims."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675.jpg
Quote #2
"Discouragement of witnesses and improper contacts directed at influencing their testimony, were deemed paramount concerns in the formulation of this policy."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675.jpg
Quote #3
"Rule 16, therefore... 'does not entitle defendants to pretrial discovery of names and addresses of prospective government witnesses or persons who have knowledge of the case.'"Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675.jpg
Quote #4
"Providing the defense with such a broad right of pre-trial discovery would vitiate an important function of the Jencks Act, the protection of potential government witnesses from threats of harm or other intimidation before the witnesses testify at trial."Source
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675.jpg
Quote #5
Full Extracted Text
Complete text extracted from the document (3,690 characters)
Page 40 of 78
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *916
2007 Utah L. Rev. 861, *916
court determined "this remedy does not address the Government's justifiable concerns regarding the risk of witness tampering in circumstances where there is no evidence that the life or safety of a prospective witness is in danger." 334 In other words, Jencks Act protection is not limited to situations where the government shows an actual danger to witnesses - its witness-protective qualities reach much further. 335
[*917] The lack of grounds for subpoenas seeking victim information is more evident when viewed against a legal landscape that gives defendants no right before trial to obtain even the names of government witnesses. Current law provides no basis for the pretrial disclosure of the names and addresses of government witnesses - including witnesses who are crime victims. For one thing, Rule 16, which governs discovery and inspection in criminal cases, contains no provisions for such disclosure. This omission was purposeful and mirrors the witness-protective purposes of the Jencks Act:
A majority of the Conferees [that is, congressional members determining the language of Rule 16] believe it is not in the interest of the effective administration of criminal justice to require that the government or the defendant be forced to reveal the names and addresses of its witnesses before trial. Discouragement of witnesses and improper contacts directed at influencing their testimony, were deemed paramount concerns in the formulation of this policy. 336
Rule 16, therefore, along with other criminal discovery rules, "does not entitle defendants to pretrial discovery of names and addresses of prospective government witnesses or persons who have knowledge of the case." 337
By statute, capital cases are exempt from this rule. In capital cases, the accused is entitled to a copy of the indictment and a list of juror and witness names and address - but only three days in advance of the trial. 338 And notably, the same statute explicitly provides for the withholding of this information "if the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that providing the list may jeopardize the life or safety of any person." 339 No statute authorizes similar disclosures in noncapital cases. As the Eighth Circuit noted in United States v. Hutchings, "neither [Rule 16(a)] governing information subject to disclosure by the Government in criminal cases, nor any other federal rule or statute requires the Government to supply names of potential
_________________________________________________________________
327 See id. § 3500(b); see also Fed. R. Crim. P. 26.2 (integrating Jencks Act into the federal rules).
328 United States v. Susskind, 4 F.3d 1400, 1404 (6th Cir. 1993).
329 United States v. Martinez, 87 F.3d 731, 739 (5th Cir. 1996) (quoting Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 351 (1959)).
330 United States v. Bobadilla-Lopez, 954 F.2d 519, 521 (9th Cir. 1992).
331 United States v. Tarantino, 846 F.2d 1384, 1414 (D.C. Cir. 1988).
332 267 F.3d 132, 138, 145-46 (2d Cir. 2001).
333 Id. at 138-39.
334 Id. at 139.
335 See, e.g., United States v. Presser, 844 F.2d 1275, 1285 (6th Cir. 1988) ("Providing the defense with such a broad right of pre-trial discovery would vitiate an important function of the Jencks Act, the protection of potential government witnesses from threats of harm or other intimidation before the witnesses testify at trial.").
336 H.R. Rep. No. 94-414, at 12 (1975) (Conf. Rep.), reprinted in 1975 U.S.C.C.A.N. 713, 716.
337 United States v. Laurins, 660 F. Supp. 1579, 1584 (N.D. Cal. 1987).
338 See 18 U.S.C. § 3432 (2006).
339 See id.
DAVID SCHOEN
HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017675
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein document