About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

68 Wash. U. L. Q. 71 (1990)
Protecting Defense Evidence from Prosecutorial Discovery

handle is hein.journals/walq68 and id is 83 raw text is: PROTECTING DEFENSE EVIDENCE FROM PROSECUTORIAL DISCOVERY RICHARD W. BECKLER* FREDERICK ROBINSON** WENDY SUE MORPHEW*** I. INTRODUCTION In Jencks v. United States,1 the Supreme Court ruled that a federal criminal defendant has a constitutional right to discovery of prior state- ments of a government witness if those statements are related to the testi- mony of the witness at trial. The Court based its ruling on the crucial importance of such statements to the defendant's ability to impeach wit- nesses effectively on cross-examination and to prepare his defense ade- quately.2 As courts continued to grant criminal defendants greater access to helpful evidence prior to trial,3 however, the government began demanding equal treatment. Prosecutors argued that, aside from the fifth amendment privilege against self-incrimination, a defendant has no valid interest in denying the prosecution access to evidence that could throw light on the issues in a case-that the state has just as much right to discovery of defense evidence as the defense has to discovery of evi- dence in the hands of the state. Sensing a receptive attitude from the legislatures and the courts, prosecutors argued further that the general policy of wide-open discovery in civil cases should be equally applicable to criminal trials. It is now clear that the fifth amendment is not an absolute bar to crimi- nal discovery in favor of the prosecution.4 For example, the Supreme * B.A., Williams College, 1961; J.D., Fordham University, 1968. Mr. Beckler is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office of Fulbright & Jaworski. ** B.A., Duke University, 1979; J.D., Duke University, 1982. Mr. Robinson is a participating associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Fulbright & Jaworski. *** B.A., University of Arizona, 1980; J.D., University of Virginia, 1988. Ms. Morphew is an associate in the Washington, D.C. office of Hazel, Thomas, Fiske, Weiner, Beckhorn & Hanes, P.C. 1. 353 U.S. 657 (1957). 2. Id. at 667, 668-69. 3. See, e.g., Wardius v. Oregon, 412 U.S. 470, 475 (1973) (insisting that discovery in a criminal trial must be a two-way street). 4. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 85 (1970) (Nothing in the Fifth Amendment privilege entitles a defendant as a matter of constitutional right to await the end of the State's case before announcing the nature of his defense.).

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most