Subsection (a)(3) is added to clarify that registered grand jury proceedings are explicitly addressed in Article 6 and subsection (a)(1)(A) of Article 16 and are therefore not covered by other provisions such as subsection (a)(1)(C), which generally deals with the discovery of documents in possession, under the custody or control of the government. The Committee made an additional amendment to subparagraph (a)(1)(E). The proposed arrangement required the prosecutor to provide the accused with a record of the convictions of government witnesses for crimes. The main purpose for the defendant to discover information about the records of government witnesses is to give him information about the credibility of these witnesses. Rule 609(a) of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows a party to challenge the credibility of a witness through convictions other than convictions. The Committee therefore amended subparagraph (a)(1)(E) to require the prosecutor to submit a record of all criminal convictions, not just criminal convictions. It is doubtful whether disclosure in criminal matters is permitted under current law, United States v. Rosenfeld, 57 F.2d 74 (C.C.A. 2d) – Zert. den., 286 U.S. 556.
However, the courts have issued orders giving the defendant an opportunity to examine the seized documents belonging to him, United States v. B. Goedde and Co., 40 F.Supp. 523, 534 (Ill. D.D.). The rule is a reformulation of this procedure. In addition, it allows for the application of the procedure in cases of objects and documents obtained by others through seizure or proceeding, on the assumption that such evidence would probably have been accessible to the accused had it not previously been seized by the prosecution. The whole matter is left to the discretion of the court.
The wording of section 16 has been amended as part of the general reorganization of the penal rules to make them easier to understand and to make the style and terminology consistent across the rules. These changes are made for stylistic purposes only, unless otherwise stated below. The proposed Regulations also expand the scope of government disclosure of records held in the custody of the accused. The government is entitled to a list of the names and addresses of witnesses that the accused intends to mention during his trial. Proposed subsection (b)(2) protects the accused from the obligation to disclose “internal defence reports, memoranda or other documents.” in the context of the investigation or defence of the case. The amendment defines the defendant in a broad and non-exclusive manner. See also 18 U.S.C. §18 (the term “organization” includes a person other than an individual). And the amendment recognizes that an organizational defendant could be bound by an agent`s testimony, see, for example, Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2), or be held liable on behalf of an agent`s actions.
The amendment provides that, at the request of the respondent, the government will disclose all statements that fall within the scope of the rule and that have been made by persons whom it claims to belong to the groups of persons described in the rule. It is not necessary for the defence to establish or admit that these persons may have bound the accused. (I) resolve the case and apply special procedures to resolve the dispute, if permitted by local law or regulations; Rules 12.1 and 12.2, although not technical discovery rules, are closely related. (a) the objectives of a pre-trial conference. In any action, the court may order counsel and all self-represented parties to appear at one or more pre-trial conferences for the following purposes: A schedule can only be changed by the approval of the court for cause. The last sentence of subsection (c) is new. See Wisconsin Rule of Civil Procedure 802.11(2). It was added to address one of the previously described criticisms of current practice and to ensure proper preparation prior to the conference, so that the meeting is more than a ceremonial or ritual event. The reference to “powers” is not intended to emphasize the ability to resolve the dispute.
Nor should the rule be interpreted as encouraging the presiding judge to compel lawyers to enter into agreements or make confessions that they consider inappropriate, that affect matters that would not normally have been expected at the conference, or matters of a dimension that normally require prior consultation and consent of the client.
