Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16
Advisory Commission Comment.
This rule substantially conforms to the new federal discovery Rule 16, and was adopted by the commission as a middle-ground reciprocal rule.
The reference in (a)(1)(B) to the discovery of recorded grand jury testimony of a defendant will not have the same utility in state court, because under state procedure a prospective defendant seldom is required to testify before a grand jury. The commission left this language in the rule because it might be useful in connection with the operation of Rule 6(j)(5) and (6), the immunity provisions. Grand jury proceedings in Tennessee are not presently regularly recorded, but could be.
The rule is always triggered by the defendant; where the defendant requests disclosure, the reciprocal rights of the state come into play.
The commission agrees that the defendant shall still receive advance notice of the names of the state’s witnesses, as is now provided by T.C.A. §§ 40-13-107, 40-17-106.
It is intended that section (a)(1)(F), as it relates to the inspection of tangible objects, shall mean that in controlled substance cases the defendant upon request must be furnished a sufficient quantity of the substance to permit a scientific examination for identification purposes. The defendant has this right under existing case law. The commission considers that a meaningful “inspection” of a controlled substance means a scientific testing of a sample thereof. Results are subject to discovery by the state under section (b)(1)(B).
The continuing duty to disclose set out in section (c), and the flexibility of the court’s regulation of discovery as set out in section (d), are deemed to be very important.
Rules 12.1 and 12.2, although not technically discovery rules, are closely related.
While we have heretofore had a substantial body of statutory and case law providing for discovery by the defendant, this rule for the first time provides the state with reciprocal discovery.
This rule is not the exclusive procedure for obtaining discovery, since discovery required by due process is not expressly structured into the rule. For example, for the rule as to the state’s duty to disclose exculpatory evidence, see Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). The voluntary disclosure of evidence not within the ambit of this rule is encouraged by the commission. Under section (a)(1)(A), the commission originally provided that the defendant might obtain all of his or her statements, whether made to a law-enforcement official or to a lay witness. However, this was amended to conform to the federal rule, being limited by the language, “in response to interrogation by any person then known to the defendant to be a law-enforcement officer.”
The statements of a codefendant discoverable by the codefendant are likewise made discoverable by the defendant, if the codefendant and the defendant are scheduled to be tried jointly. Such statements of a codefendant may be reviewed to determine whether or not a severance under Rule 14(c) need be sought.
The procedure provided in 16(a)(1)(E) conforms to T.C.A. § 40-17-120. It is similar to the federal Jencks Act ( 18 U.S.C. § 3500), but broader. This rule allows the defendant and the state to request a witness’s statement from the presenting adverse party after the witness has testified on direct examination. Although it is technically a discovery device, its most important function is to promote the integrity of the fact-finding process, and is related to the due process requirements of Brady and its progeny. The commission deliberately did not incorporate that provision of subdivision (e)(3) of the federal Jencks Act, which applies to statements of witnesses before a grand jury, and such statements are not meant to be obtainable hereunder simply because a grand jury witness testifies for the state. Such statements may only be obtained under the limited provisions of existing law now embodied in Rule 6(k)(2).
Advisory Commission Comment [2018 Amendment]
Title 39, chapter 17, part 10 of the Tennessee Code Annotated prohibits conduct that involves child pornography. See Sentencing Commission Comment to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1001. Consequently, evidence in those cases often will be material that constitutes child pornography. The amendment conforms Tennessee discovery practice to federal law concerning the reproduction of material constituting child pornography under 18 U.S.C. § 3509(m). Tennessee courts face this situation on a routine basis, and the absence of a clear procedural rule can lead to delay in a defendant’s defense, time-consuming proceedings, and the expenditure of judicial resources. See, e.g., State v. Re’Licka Dajuan Allen, No. E2007-01018-CCA-R3-CD (Tenn. Crim. App., Feb. 12, 2009). The amendment provides the procedural means for trial courts to control the reproduction and dissemination of material constituting child pornography, while protecting a defendant’s right to access the information for the purpose of a defense. A form for a protective order under section (d)(3)(C) is provided below as part of this comment.
State of Tennessee Circuit / Criminal Court ____________________ County |
PROTECTIVE ORDER PURSUANT TO TENN. R. CRIM. P. 16(d)(3) |
Case Number |
STATE OF TENNESSEE vs. __________________________________________________ [Defendant’s Name] |
This matter is before the Court upon the motion of the State of Tennessee pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(d)(3) for a protective order governing the production in discovery of documents and objects relating to the sexual exploitation of minors under title 39, chapter 17, part 10. It is, therefore, ORDERED, that the following provisions of this Order shall control the disclosure, dissemination, and use of information in this action:
1. The state of Tennessee has failed to demonstrate that the documents or objects subject to discovery pursuant to Tenn. R. Crim. P. 16(a)(1)(F) will be made reasonably available to the defendant throughout the proceeding or has failed to make the property or material reasonably available to the defendant at any time during the proceeding. Therefore, the trial court orders the state to permit the defendant to copy or photograph any documents or objects that constitute “material” (hereinafter “Prima Facie Contraband”) as defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1002 and prohibited by Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-1003, -1004, and -1005, subject to the following conditions.
2. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel acknowledged that the material that is subject to this order is prima facie contraband the possession of which is otherwise prohibited. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall be authorized to possess the Prima Facie Contraband during the pendency of this proceeding as long as Defendant and Defendant’s counsel comply with the terms of this order.
3. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel may possess and use the Prima Facie Contraband only for purposes of this litigation and not for any personal, business, commercial, scientific, competitive, or any other purpose whatsoever
4. Except as permitted by Paragraph 5, Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall not disclose the Prima Facie Contraband to any person. Any unauthorized disclosure shall be treated as contempt of this order and may result in criminal prosecution.
5. Defendant and Defendant’s counsel may disclose the Prima Facie Contraband to the following Authorized Persons: (a) counsel of record for the parties; (b) the permanent or temporary attorneys, paralegals, clerical, and secretarial staff employed by or in practice with Defendants’ counsel; (c) non-party experts or consultants (together with their associates, consultants and clerical and secretarial staff) retained to assist in the defense, settlement, or other disposition of this action; (d) court reporter(s) employed in this action; (e) court personnel; (f) a witness at any deposition or other proceeding in this action and counsel for that witness; and (g) third-party contractors engaged in one or more aspects of organizing, copying, imaging, filing, coding, converting, storing or retrieving data, documents, or other information, or designing programs for handling data connected with this litigation, including the performance of such duties in relation to a computerized litigation support system.
6. Before making any disclosure authorized by Paragraph 5, Defendant and Defendant’s counsel shall deliver a copy of this Order to the Authorized Persons, shall explain its terms to the Authorized Persons, shall instruct the Authorized Persons to comply with this Order, and shall require the Authorized Persons to acknowledge receipt of a copy of this Order in writing.
7. Within 30 days of the final disposition of this action in the highest court to which an appeal is taken, or if no appeal is taken within 30 of entry of the judgment, Defendant, Defendant’s counsel, and each Authorized Person shall return the Prima Facie Contraband to the state or certify under oath that the Prima Facie Contraband has been destroyed.
8. Defendant, Defendant’s counsel, and each Authorized Person who receives Prima Facie Contraband shall maintain the Prima Facie Contraband in a safe and secure area consistent with the provisions of this Order to prevent unauthorized disclosure or dissemination.
9. This Order shall remain in effect after the final determination of this action, unless otherwise ordered by the Court.
10. Each person to whom any Prima Facie Contraband is disclosed agrees to be subject to the jurisdiction of this Court for the purpose of proceedings relating to compliance with or violation of this Order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
__________________________________________
JUDGE