## Facts

- Nobles was tried in federal court for armed robbery of a federally insured bank.
- The prosecution’s case relied heavily on eyewitness identifications by two key witnesses.
- A defense investigator interviewed these witnesses before trial and prepared a written report summarizing their statements.
- The defense sought to call the investigator to impeach the eyewitnesses with alleged prior inconsistent statements.
- The district court ruled that if the investigator testified about the interviews, the defense must produce the relevant portions of the investigator’s report after an in camera review and excision of irrelevant material.
- Defense counsel refused to produce the report; the court excluded the investigator’s testimony about the interviews.
- Nobles was convicted.
- The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding the disclosure condition violated the Fifth Amendment and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16.
- The Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal trial court may condition a defense investigator’s impeachment testimony on producing relevant portions of the investigator’s report summarizing witness interviews.
2. Whether compelled production of the report violates the defendant’s Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
3. Whether Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 limits a trial court’s authority to order such production during trial.
4. Whether the attorney work-product doctrine bars disclosure after the defense elects to present the investigator as a witness.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and upheld the district court’s ruling.
- The district court acted within its inherent authority in requiring production of relevant prior witness statements to permit effective cross-examination and fact-finding.
- The Fifth Amendment did not bar disclosure because the privilege is personal to the accused and does not extend to third-party witness statements contained in the investigator’s report.
- Rule 16 governs pretrial discovery and did not constrain the trial court’s authority to condition trial testimony on disclosure of relevant materials.
- Any qualified work-product protection was waived as to matters covered by the investigator’s testimony once the defense chose to call the investigator as a witness.
- Excluding the investigator’s testimony after the defense refused to comply with the disclosure condition was permissible.

## Legal Principles

- Federal courts have inherent authority to require production of prior recorded witness statements when necessary to ensure fair testing of evidence and effective cross-examination at trial.
- The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination is personal and does not protect third-party statements obtained by defense investigators from compelled disclosure.
- Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 16 regulates pretrial discovery and does not limit trial-stage evidentiary authority to order disclosure tied to witness testimony.
- Attorney work-product protection for investigative materials is qualified and may be waived when a party presents testimony relying on those materials; the producing party cannot use work product offensively while withholding it from adversarial scrutiny.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a trial judge may require disclosure of relevant portions of a defense investigator’s witness-interview report as a condition of the investigator’s impeachment testimony, because the Fifth Amendment does not protect third-party statements, Rule 16 does not restrict trial-stage disclosure orders, and any work-product protection is waived to the extent the defense places the report’s contents at issue through testimony.


United States v. Nobles, 422 U.S. 225 (1975)