Subpoena Duces Tecum - Jencks Act Cases

Jencks Act Cases

In the 1957 case Jencks v. United States the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must have access to government witnesses who testify against him in a criminal trial, and must also have access to any documents pertaining to that testimony. This includes papers, documents, written statements and the like. This led to passage of the Jencks Act, 18 USC, Part II, Chapter 223, ยง 3500, which allows for subpoena duces tecum of relevant government documents, but only after a government agent or employee has testified at trial. There can be no pre-trial discovery. The subpoena is allowed by the trial judge. The government has the right to deny access to the documents. This may be due to the sensitive nature of the documents, or because they are classified.

In such an instance the accused is permitted to pray unto the Court for remedy or sanction against his accuser or plaintiff, for his inability to be able to confront the papers and/or effects (i.e., material items, physical exhibits, technical analyses, lab reports, etc.) that assert or support the accusation(s) against him. The Court, in law and equity is required to answer such a prayer. If the accused's prayer is not answered in a manner that favorably restores the balance between the accused and the Government in criminal cases, or between the defendant and the plaintiff in civil cases, it is grounds for an appeal if a mistrial is not granted. The United States Supreme Court dealt with this issue in federal civil cases in United States v. Reynolds.

If the remedy is granted there is a mistrial and dismissal of criminal charges. An accused criminal has no right to subpoena the work product of the prosecution in a criminal case.

Read more about this topic:  Subpoena Duces Tecum

Famous quotes containing the words act and/or cases:

    But the whim we have of happiness is somewhat thus. By certain valuations, and averages, of our own striking, we come upon some sort of average terrestrial lot; this we fancy belongs to us by nature, and of indefeasible rights. It is simple payment of our wages, of our deserts; requires neither thanks nor complaint.... Foolish soul! What act of legislature was there that thou shouldst be happy? A little while ago thou hadst no right to be at all.
    Thomas Carlyle (1795–1881)

    Lovers’ quarrels are not generally about money. Divorce cases generally are.
    Mason Cooley (b. 1927)