Also known as: Fed. R. Crim. P. 16 · FRCrP 16 · Rule 16 · criminal discovery rule
Written by attorneys — see sources below.
A federal rule that governs pretrial discovery in criminal cases by requiring the government to disclose specified materials to the defendant and providing for limited reciprocal discovery from the defense.
Pacific Exporters sued BlueWave Shipping in federal court over lost cargo. The court set a June 30 scheduling conference. The parties waited until June 27 for a brief call that skipped key discovery issues. The court ordered them to hold a proper conference immediately because they had missed the required timing.
The government charged Fabian Flynn with fraud. Fourteen days after arraignment, the prosecutor and defense counsel met to set a timetable for exchanging witness statements and expert reports under the discovery rule. They agreed on staggered production dates to allow adequate preparation time before trial.
Defendants moved for discovery of prosecution files to support a selective prosecution claim. The court denied the request because the defendants failed to make the required threshold showing of different treatment for similarly situated persons.
Former employees sued their union for failing to process grievances. The court held that the complaint gave fair notice of the claim and that discovery would allow the plaintiffs to develop supporting facts through document requests.
Plaintiffs sought production of defense counsel's interview memoranda. The court ruled that the memoranda constituted protected work product and refused to order disclosure absent a showing of substantial need and undue hardship.
After the defense called an investigator to testify, the prosecution sought production of the investigator's report. The court ordered limited disclosure of the report because the Fifth Amendment privilege did not protect statements of third-party witnesses.
Respondent Robert Nobles was tried and convicted in federal district court on charges arising from an armed robbery of a federally insured bank. The prosecution's principal evidence consisted of identification testimony from a bank teller and a salesman who had been present during the robbery. Nobles presented an alibi but centered his defense on efforts to discredit the two eyewitnesses. In preparing for trial, a defense investigator hired by Nobles' counsel interviewed both eyewitnesses and recorded the substance of those conversations in a written report. During cross-examination of the bank teller, defense counsel asked whether the teller had told the investigator he saw only the back of the man identified as Nobles; the teller did not recall making the statement. The prosecutor was permitted to see a portion of the report briefly, after which the teller testified that he had actually seen more than the back and continued to identify Nobles. Defense counsel similarly cross-examined the salesman about whether he had told the investigator that all blacks looked alike to him; the salesman denied making the statement. The district court declined to order immediate disclosure but ruled that production of portions of the report would be required if the investigator later testified about the interviews. The court stated it would conduct an in camera review and excise any references to matters not relevant to the precise statements at issue. After the prosecution rested, the defense called the investigator as a witness. The court reiterated that an inspected and edited copy of the report would have to be provided to the government at the conclusion of the investigator's testimony. When defense counsel refused to produce the report, the court ruled that the investigator could not testify about his interviews with the two witnesses. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.
View caseThe government must disclose the defendant's statements, prior criminal record, documents and objects it intends to use at trial, and reports of examinations or tests. The rule also requires disclosure of expert witness information.
No later than fourteen days after arraignment the prosecutor and defense counsel must meet to agree on a timetable and procedures for pretrial disclosure under the rule.
Supporting sources
Yes. The rule provides a limited reciprocal discovery obligation that requires the defense to disclose similar categories of materials when it requests discovery from the government.
…preparation for trial. The various instruments of discovery now serve (1) as a device, along with the pre-trial hearing under Rule 16, to narrow and clarify the basic issues between the parties, and (2) as a device for ascertaining the facts, or information as to the existence or whereabouts of facts, relative to those…