Download the WordPerfect version

                                                   Page 1

                  UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                        HOUSTON DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )CRIMINAL NO: H-92-152(filed 8/13/92)
                         )
          v.             )Violations:
                         )15 U.S.C. § 1
JOHN J. JOHNSON,         )18 U.S.C. § 1001
                         )18 U.S.C. § 2(b)
              Defendant. )18 U.S.C. § 371


         GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR
      PRESERVATION OF ROUGH NOTES AND OTHER MATERIALS

   The United States of America hereby responds to
Defendant's Motion for Preservation of Rough Notes and Other
Materials.  In his motion, the defendant requests that the Court
instruct every attorney and investigative agent for the United
States in this case to:

   preserve all field notes, memoranda, or
   other recordings of facts and other
   information gathered during the
   investigation of the incidents which
   led to this indictment, and to prevent
   the same from being destroyed so that
   such recordings will be available to
   counsel for purposes of cross
   examination and   will preserve the
   Defendant's right to effective
   assistance of counsel under the Sixth
   Amendment to the United States
   Constitution.

Def. Mot. at 1.
   The government attorneys have preserved all of
their notes pertaining to this investigation and will
continue to do so through the trial of the defendant. 
Additionally, the government attorneys have requested that
the agents of the United States Department of Agriculture,
                                                   Page 2

Office of Inspector

General, Investigations, assisting them retain their notes
pertaining to this investigation through the trial of the
defendant.
   The government is fully aware of its obligations
under the Jencks Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500, and Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194 (1963), and
therefore objects to this request and to the necessity for
preservation of rough notes to the extent they do not
constitute discovery materials or are not otherwise
subject to disclosure.  See, e.g., United States v.
Newman, 849 F.2d 156, 160 (5th Cir. 1988); United States
v. Martin, 565 F.2d 362, 363 (5th Cir. 1978); United
States v. Gates, 557 F.2d 1086, 1089 (5th Cir. 1977),
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1017 (1978).
   Moreover, while the government has complied with
the defendant's request for the preservation of rough
notes, the government asserts that this information is
specifically exempted from disclosure pursuant to Fed. R.
Crim. P. 16(a)(2).
See also Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 511, 67 S.Ct.
 385, 393 (1947); United States v. Pierce, 893 F.2d 669,
675 (5th Cir. 1990); United States v. Friedman, 593 F.2d
109, 120 (9th Cir. 1979).
   Accordingly, because the government has
                                                   Page 3

represented its intention to preserve all of notes
pertaining to the investigation, and because the
defendant's request encompasses information not subject to
disclosure, the motion should be denied.
                            Respectfully submitted,



                                  "/s/"           
   
                            JANE E. PHILLIPS



                                   "/s/"          
   
                            JOAN E. MARSHALL



                                  "/s/"           
                            
                            MARK R. ROSMAN

                            Attorneys
                            U.S. Department of 
                            Justice
                            Antitrust Division
                            1100 Commerce Street, 
                            Room 8C6
                            Dallas, Texas  
                            75242-0898
                            (214) 767-8051


                                                   Page 4



               CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


   I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of
the Government's Response to Defendant's Motion for
Preservation of Rough Notes and Other Materials and
proposed order has been served upon and was sent via
Federal Express this          day of August, 1992, to:


             Joel M. Androphy, Esq.
             Berg & Androphy
             3704 Travis Street
             Houston, Texas  77002




                                 "/s/"           
 
                            JANE E. PHILLIPS
                            Attorney




                                                   Page 5



                 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
                 HOUSTON DIVISION


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA    )    CRIMINAL NO:  H-92-152
                            )
         v.                 )    Violations:
                            )    15 U.S.C. § 1
JOHN J. JOHNSON,            )    18 U.S.C. § 1001
                            )    18 U.S.C. § 2(b)
            Defendant.      )    18 U.S.C. § 371


                       ORDER


        Upon consideration of the Defendant's Motion for
Preservation of Rough Notes and Other Materials and the
Government's Response,
        The Defendant's Motion is hereby DENIED.
        DONE AND ENTERED THIS        day of              
 
1992.




                            
____________________________
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE