SCOPE OF RULE Clause Samples

SCOPE OF RULE. This rule applies at a sup- pression hearing conducted under Rule 12, at trial under this rule, and to the extent specified: (1) in Rule 32(e) at sentencing; (2) in Rule 32.1(c) at a hearing to revoke or modify probation or supervised release; (3) in Rule 46(i) at a detention hearing; and (4) in Rule 8 of the Rules Governing Proceed- ings under 28 U.S.C. § 2255. (Added Apr. 30, 1979, eff. Dec. 1, 1980; amended Mar. 9, 1987, eff. Aug. 1, 1987; Apr. 22, 1993, eff. Dec. 1, 1993.) Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—1979 S. 1437, 95th Cong., 1st Sess. (1977), would place in the criminal rules the substance of what is now 18 U.S.C. § 3500 (the ▇▇▇▇▇▇ Act). Underlying this and certain other additions to the rules contemplated by ▇. 1437 is the notion that provisions which are purely procedural in nature should appear in the Federal Rules of ▇▇▇▇▇- nal Procedure rather than in Title 18. See Reform of the Federal Criminal Laws, Part VI: Hearings on S. 1, S. 716, and S. 1400, Subcomm. on Criminal Laws and Procedures, Senate Judiciary Comm., 93rd Cong., 1st Sess. (statement of Judge ▇▇▇▇▇▇ ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇, at page 5503). Rule 26.2 is identical to the S.1437 rule except as indicated by the marked additions and deletions. As those changes show, rule 26.2 provides for production of the statements of defense witnesses at trial in essen- tially the same manner as is now provided for with re- spect to the statements of government witnesses. Thus, the proposed rule reflects these two judgments: (i) that the subject matter—production of the statements of witnesses—is more appropriately dealt with in the criminal rules; and (ii) that in light of United States ▇. ▇▇▇▇▇▇, 422 U.S. 225 (1975), it is important to establish procedures for the production of defense witnesses’ statements as well. The rule is not intended to discour- age the practice of voluntary disclosure at an earlier time so as to avoid delays at trial. In ▇▇▇▇▇▇, defense counsel sought to introduce the tes- ▇▇▇▇▇▇ of a defense investigator who prior to trial had interviewed prospective prosecution witnesses and had prepared a report embodying the essence of their con- versation. When the defendant called the investigator to impeach eyewitness testimony identifying the de- fendant as the robber, the trial judge granted the pros- ecutor the right to inspect those portions of the inves- tigator’s report relating to the witnesses’ statements, as a potential basis for cross-examination of the inves- tigator. When the defe...