Also known as: reporters' notes · reporter's notes · reporters notes · Reporters' Notes
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
Notes prepared by a court reporter to record grand jury proceedings other than deliberations or voting. An attorney for the government retains control of the notes and any resulting transcript unless the court orders otherwise.
A federal grand jury heard testimony from hospital administrator Lopez about billing practices. The court reporter became ill and stopped recording before Lopez finished. Lopez later moved to dismiss the indictment. The court denied the motion because the failure to record was unintentional and did not affect the validity of the prosecution.
Plaintiff Regina Robinson testified before a grand jury about a car accident. A sudden medical emergency interrupted the session. The court reporter's notes captured the testimony up to that point. The notes remained under the prosecutor's control for later use in assessing the witness's account.
Journalist Ronald Reed faced a defamation suit brought by Roberto Reyes. Reyes sought production of Reed's editorial notes from a published story. The court permitted limited discovery into the notes to evaluate actual malice while protecting unrelated materials.
In 1969-1970, Anthony Herbert, a retired Army officer with extended wartime service in Vietnam, accused his superior officers of covering up reports of atrocities and other war crimes and received widespread media attention. Three years later, on February 4, 1973, Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. broadcast a report on Herbert and his accusations. The program was produced and edited by Barry Lando and narrated by Mike Wallace. Lando later published a related article in Atlantic Monthly magazine. Herbert sued Lando, Wallace, CBS, and Atlantic Monthly for defamation in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, invoking diversity jurisdiction. In his complaint, Herbert alleged that the program and article falsely and maliciously portrayed him as a liar who had made war-crimes charges to explain his relief from command. He sought substantial damages for injury to his reputation and to the literary value of a book he had published recounting his experiences. Although Herbert conceded he was a public figure required to prove actual malice, he deposed Lando at length and sought an order to compel answers to a variety of questions to which response was refused on the ground that the First Amendment protected against inquiry into the state of mind of those who edit, produce, or publish, and into the editorial process. The District Court found the questions relevant under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b) because the defendant's state of mind was central to malice and ordered Lando to answer. The case was certified for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed. It held that the First Amendment supplied an absolute privilege protecting Lando from inquiry into his thoughts, opinions, and conclusions regarding the material gathered and his conversations with editorial colleagues. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseRaven Logistics sued Continental Oil in a California court over a contract formed in another state. The parties disputed which state's law applied to the underlying events. The court reviewed the grand jury reporter's notes from a related federal investigation to determine the contacts and applicable rules.
Offshore Rental Company is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. It derives its revenues in large part from leasing oil drilling equipment in Louisiana's Gulf Coast area. Continental Oil Company is a Delaware corporation headquartered in New York. It does business in California, Louisiana, and other states. In November 1967, Offshore opened an office in Houston, Texas, to establish a base closer to the Gulf Coast. In June 1968, Offshore's vice-president Howard C. Kaylor traveled from that office to Louisiana to confer with Continental's representatives. During that trip, Continental negligently injured Kaylor on its premises in Louisiana. At the time, Kaylor was responsible for obtaining contracts for Offshore's increased business in Louisiana. Continental compensated Kaylor for his injuries. Offshore then filed suit in California seeking $5 million in damages for the loss of Kaylor's services. In a bifurcated trial on choice of law, the trial court found that all significant contacts were in Louisiana except for Offshore's California residency. The court determined that Louisiana law governed whether a corporation could maintain an action for damages from personal injuries to its employee. Finding that Louisiana law barred the action, the court entered judgment for Continental. Offshore appealed from the judgment.
View caseRajesh Rao sued his former employer after termination. The employer had recorded a related internal investigation before a grand jury. The court allowed use of the reporter's notes to show what Rao had disclosed during the proceeding.
Interactive Data Corporation hired John Foley in June 1976 as an assistant product manager at a starting salary of $18,500. As a condition of employment Foley signed a confidential and proprietary information agreement. The company's president told Foley that if he performed his job well he would have a long and rewarding employment with the firm. Over the next six years and nine months Foley received steady salary increases, promotions, bonuses, awards, and superior performance evaluations, rising to branch manager of the Los Angeles office with an annual salary of $56,164 plus a merit bonus. In January 1983 Foley learned that his new supervisor, Robert Kuhne, was under investigation by the FBI for embezzlement from his former employer, Bank of America. Foley reported the information to Vice President Richard Earnest because he was worried about working for Kuhne in a supervisory position. Earnest told Foley not to discuss rumors and to forget what he had heard. In early March 1983 Kuhne informed Foley that the company had decided to replace him for performance reasons and offered a transfer to another division. Foley was later told he could continue as branch manager if he agreed to a performance plan, but when Kuhne met with him the next day Kuhne instead gave Foley the choice of resigning or being fired. Foley was discharged on March 13, 1983. Foley filed suit against Interactive Data Corporation alleging three causes of action: tortious discharge in violation of public policy, breach of an implied-in-fact contract to terminate only for good cause, and tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The superior court sustained the company's demurrer without leave to amend and dismissed the action. The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment. The Supreme Court granted review.
View caseA Florida trial court permitted television coverage of a criminal proceeding. The defendant challenged the presence of cameras. The appellate court examined the grand jury reporter's notes to confirm that no recording gaps had occurred during key testimony.
In January 1975, the Post-Newsweek Stations of Florida petitioned the Supreme Court of Florida to change Canon 3A(7) of the Florida Code of Judicial Conduct, which had prohibited broadcasting and televising of courtroom proceedings. After a rulemaking proceeding and an initial experimental program requiring party consent, the Florida Supreme Court established a one-year pilot program in 1977 allowing electronic media coverage of all judicial proceedings without participant consent, subject to detailed guidelines on technology and conduct. The pilot ran from July 1977 through June 1978, after which the court reviewed surveys, briefs, and experiences from other states before promulgating a revised Canon 3A(7) in 1979 permitting such coverage under the presiding judge's control. In July 1977, appellants, two Miami Beach policemen, were charged with conspiracy to commit burglary, grand larceny, and possession of burglary tools arising from the break-in of a Miami Beach restaurant. The state's key witness was John Sion, an amateur radio operator who had recorded conversations between the appellants on their police radios during the incident. These circumstances drew media attention to the case. Prior to trial, appellants moved to have the experimental Canon 3A(7) declared unconstitutional on its face and as applied, but the trial court denied relief. The Florida Supreme Court declined to rule on the constitutional question at that stage. During jury selection, each prospective juror was asked about the impact of television coverage and responded that it would not affect their impartiality. A television camera recorded the voir dire proceedings. At trial, a television camera was present for one afternoon during the testimony of the state's chief witness and returned for closing arguments, though only two minutes and fifty-five seconds of the proceedings were actually broadcast, showing only the prosecution's case. The trial court denied a defense motion to sequester the jury and instructed jurors not to watch media coverage of the case. Appellants were convicted on all counts, after which they moved for a new trial citing the television coverage but presented no evidence of specific prejudice. The Florida District Court of Appeal affirmed the convictions, finding no indication that the camera had hampered the defense or deprived appellants of an impartial jury, and certified the facial constitutionality question to the Florida Supreme Court. The Florida Supreme Court denied review, deeming the appeal moot in light of its earlier decision upholding the revised Canon.
View caseNo. The rule provides that the validity of a prosecution is not affected by an unintentional failure to make a recording. Courts therefore deny motions to dismiss that rest solely on an accidental gap in the record.
An attorney for the government retains control of the recording, the reporter's notes, and any transcript unless the court orders otherwise. Witnesses and other participants have no independent right to custody of the materials.
No. An unrecorded session by itself does not affect the validity of the prosecution. The defendant must identify some additional prejudice or legal defect beyond the mere absence of a record.
…Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing as a Tort (1985) 73 Cal.L.Rev. 1291, fn. 3 [hereafter Reconstructing Breach ]). As the reporter's notes to Restatement Second of Contracts, chapter 16, section 344 et seq., pages 101-102, state, "a breach of contract will result in a gain in economic efficiency' if the party contemplating…