U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1963

Irving M. Saunders v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided October 31, 1963 · Miller, Bastían, McGowan

323 F.2d 628 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Michael W. Mitchell, Washington, D. C. (appointed by this court), with whom Mr. George W. Shadoan, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court), was on the brief, for appellant., Mr. B. Michael Rauh, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Victor V/. Caputy, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.

Cases that cite this one

6 later published cases cite this decision.

In re SWB (D.C. 1974)
In re S. W. B. (D.C. 1974)
Saunders v. District of Columbia (D.C. 1970)
Orvel Winston Lloyd v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
Lloyd v. United States (5th Cir. 1969)
United States v. Robert Dewey Hilbrich, United States of America v. Nicholas Jacop Uselding (7th Cir. 1965)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

On Saunders’s appeal from a robbery conviction, we remanded — without vacating the judgment of conviction — for the District Court to determine whether the Jencks Act 1 required the production of certain papers he had demanded at his trial. Saunders v. United States, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 316 F.2d 346 (1963). In that opinion, our principal concern was with some notes taken by a Government attorney during a pre-trial interview with a Government witness. At the hearing on remand, these notes were produced, and the defense conceded they were riot required to be produced at trial. Also forthcoming at the hearing were certain police reports, some of which are characterized by the defense as “a reasonably accurate reproduction” of notes taken by the investigating officer which had been destroyed by him after trial. The District Court heard lengthy testimony with respect to the formulation of these documents, including the notes, and concluded that none was within the scope of the Jencks Act. We find no reason in the record for disturbing this conclusion.

Affirmed.

. 18 U.S.C. § 3500, 71 Stat. 595 (1957).

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.