Jencks v. United States

Jencks v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 17, 1956 Decided June 3, 1957
Full case name	Jencks v. United States, Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 23
Citations	353 U.S. 657 (more) 77 S. Ct. 1007; 1 L. Ed. 2d 1103; 1957 U.S. LEXIS 1623
Case history
Prior	Motion for Certiorari from the Fifth Circuit
Holding
The government must produce documents relied upon by government witnesses in federal criminal procedures. Jencks' conviction was overturned.
Court membership
Chief Justice Earl Warren Associate Justices Hugo Black · Felix Frankfurter William O. Douglas · Harold H. Burton Tom C. Clark · John M. Harlan II William J. Brennan Jr. · Charles E. Whittaker
Case opinions
Majority	Brennan, joined by Warren, Black, Frankfurter, Douglas, Burton, Harlan
Dissent	Clark
Whittaker took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Superseded by
Jencks Act

Jencks v. United States, 353 U.S. 657 (1957), is a decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the court held that the federal government must produce documents relied upon by government witnesses in federal criminal proceedings.

The petitioner, Clinton Jencks appealed, by certiorari, his conviction in a federal district court of violating 18 U.S.C. 1001 by filing, under 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as president of a labor union, an affidavit stating falsely that he was not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such Party. Crucial testimony against him was given by two paid undercover agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who stated on cross-examination that they made regular oral or written reports to the FBI on the matters about which they had testified.

Jencks moved for production of these reports in court for inspection by the judge with a view to their possible use by the petitioner in impeaching such testimony. His motions were denied. Jencks appealed this issue by petitioning the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari. The Court held that the denial of the motions for production of the documents was erroneous, and the conviction was reversed.^[1]