Criminal Procedure: Negligent Suppression of Evidence as Ground for New Trial in Federal Criminal

IN United States v. Consolidated Laundries Corp.' the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has expanded the scope of the public prosecutor's duty to secure a fair trial to defendants in criminal proceedings. A new trial was ordered on the finding that material evidence had been "negligently suppressed." Consolidated arose as an antitrust prosecution against a number of linen supply companies in the New York City area. At the trial all the defendants were found guilty of a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize the linen supply business in violation of sections i and 2 of the Sherman Act.2 The trial judge, sitting without a jury, relied heavily on the testimony of one Paul Ullman, the principal prosecution witness, who testified that his linen supply company had been forced out of business through the concerted efforts of the defendants. Defendants moved, pursuant to the Jencks Act,8 for the production of all statements given to the Government by Ullman which were relevant to his trial testimony. This motion was granted by the trial judge. After the trial it came to light that the Government had in its possession certain statements by Ullman which had not been produced at the time of the trial court order. In the motion for a new trial defendants did not dispute that the Government had produced all the statements which it, in good faith, thought were in its possession. However, the newly discovered statements dearly impeached some of the testimony given by Ullman at the trial,4 and defendants alleged that they were seriously prejudiced by denial of the opportunity to use these statements in their crossexamination of Ullman. Upon the district court's denial of a new trial, defendants took an appeal. In the past it would have been necessary for the defendants either to have brought the statements forward as newly discovered evidence,5