## Facts

- Philip J. Goldberg was convicted in federal court on fourteen counts of mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. § 1341, arising from a scheme involving single-premium annuity life insurance policies misrepresented as fully prepaid and usable as loan collateral.
- The prosecution case relied primarily on testimony from Newman, a fellow employee and the principal government witness.
- Before trial, the government produced Newman’s grand jury testimony transcript and a memorandum of an earlier Newman interview conducted by government attorneys with a reporter present.
- During cross-examination, Newman disclosed additional pretrial meetings with government attorneys, during which attorneys took notes that Newman checked for accuracy.
- Goldberg moved under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, for production of the prosecutors’ notes from those later meetings.
- The trial court denied the motion, treating the notes as attorney work product and declining in camera inspection.
- The Supreme Court reversed, holding that attorney-prepared writings adopted or approved by the witness are producible under the Jencks Act and not exempt as work product; the case was remanded.
- On remand, the district court reviewed the materials in camera but again denied production, finding no Jencks or Brady obligation; Goldberg appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether interview notes and related writings prepared by government attorneys become producible “statements” under 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(1) when the witness signed, adopted, or approved them.
2. Whether attorney work product categorically exempts otherwise qualifying witness statements from Jencks Act production.
3. On remand, which specific writings met the Jencks Act definition and whether nondisclosure required relief, including a new trial.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the post-remand ruling.
- It held that some items were not producible because they were not shown to Newman or were not clearly adopted or approved by him.
- It held that other items did qualify as Jencks Act statements under the Supreme Court’s construction and should have been produced after Newman testified.
- Because the government’s key witness was central to the prosecution and producible Jencks materials were withheld, the court ordered relief requiring a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 3500(e)(1), a “statement” includes a writing that the witness has “signed or otherwise adopted or approved,” even if drafted by a government lawyer.
- The Jencks Act contains no categorical attorney work-product exception for writings that satisfy the statutory definition of a producible witness statement.
- Courts must determine producibility through inspection and application of § 3500’s definition, rather than denying production solely because the document reflects attorney note-taking.
- On remand, document-by-document analysis is required: notes not adopted or approved by the witness are not Jencks statements; adopted/approved writings relating to the witness’s testimony must be produced after direct examination.
- Withholding producible Jencks statements concerning a principal government witness can warrant reversal and a new trial.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit, applying the Supreme Court’s Jencks Act interpretation, held that certain prosecutor-prepared interview writings adopted or approved by the government’s key witness were required to be produced, and that the failure to disclose them necessitated a new trial.


United States v. Goldberg, 582 F.2d 483 (9th Cir. 1978)