Also known as: Jencks Acts · 18 U.S.C. § 3500 · Jencks material
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A federal statute requiring the government to produce any prior statement of a prosecution witness that relates to the subject matter of the witness's testimony after the witness has testified on direct examination. The statute defines a statement to include a written statement signed or adopted by the witness, a substantially verbatim contemporaneous recording of the witness's oral statement, or the witness's grand jury testimony. Production allows the defense to inspect the statement, cross-examine the witness about it, and introduce relevant portions into evidence.
Christina testified for the government about scaffolding safety checks in a criminal fraud prosecution. She reviewed her daily notebook on the stand to refresh her recollection of the collapse site. Defense counsel immediately moved for production of the notebook containing both collapse-related entries and unrelated labor disputes. The court examined the notebook in camera and ordered delivery of only the related portions after redacting the rest.
The prosecutor called a cooperating witness who had testified before the grand jury about Jerome Jackson's role in the scheme. Defense counsel moved for the transcript immediately after direct examination. The court ordered production of the grand jury testimony because it related directly to the witness's trial account of the events.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Jason Jung took the stand for the government and described meetings with Jeffrey Jha about the false filings. Defense counsel requested Jung's prior written statement given to investigators. The court directed the government to produce the statement for inspection and potential impeachment use.
Jamal Jefferson testified about surveillance at the warehouse. His earlier report contained both relevant observations and unrelated personal notes. The court reviewed the report in camera, excised the unrelated sections, and delivered the remainder to defense counsel for cross-examination.
Jessica Jacobs testified for the government about her observations at the scene in a criminal prosecution. The prosecutor had previously obtained her recorded statement to investigators. The court ordered disclosure of the statement relating to her direct testimony so the defense could prepare cross-examination.
Jose Jimenez testified for the prosecution about the defendant's statements during the transaction. Defense counsel moved for production of Jimenez's prior statements in government files. The court ordered delivery of the statements that related to the subject matter of his testimony for use in cross-examination.
The government must produce the statement after the witness has testified on direct examination. Production is limited to statements that relate to the subject matter of the testimony. The court may conduct in camera review when the government claims portions are unrelated.
Supporting sources
A statement includes a written statement signed or adopted by the witness. It also includes a substantially verbatim contemporaneous recording of the witness's oral statement and the witness's grand jury testimony. Summaries or internal government notes typically do not qualify.
Supporting sources
The court must strike the witness's testimony or declare a mistrial if justice requires. The sanction applies only after the government disobeys a production order. The defense must first move for production after direct examination.
Supporting sources
No. The statute requires production only after the witness testifies on direct examination at trial. Pretrial discovery of government witness statements is generally unavailable under related rules such as Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16(a)(2).
Supporting sources
…setting, because defendants’ chief source of information about grand jury proceedings is governmental disclosures under the Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. §3500, which do not occur until trial is underway. The fact that a prosecutor knows that a Rule 6 violation is unlikely to be discovered gives the Rule little enough bite. To…