*1 1241 citizenry and were born istence citizenry. Rather serve acting autonomously, the than responsive agencies must be

peoples’ can be ac- needs good rapid complished faith dispute cit-

resolution

izen.

Affirmed. America,

UNITED STATES Plaintiff-Appellee, DAVIS, Mfg. Co.,

Harry Davis d/b/a Defendant-Appellant.

United States Court

Fifth Circuit.

March 1970.

Rehearing April 29, Denied *2 Sigel, Sigel, Edwin M. court, therefore, Simms & The trial no committed Roane, Houston, Tex., Jay Michael Ku- error that is before us for review. per, Dallas, Tex., Williams, Edward B. did conclude that the trial court Washington, C., defendant-appel- for D. denying appellant’s in motion lant. certain Atty., Mahon, H.B. U. S. Eldon B. who testified before the Dallas, Jr., Atty., Timmins, U. S. Asst. grand jury, but who not called to Atty. Tex., Walters, M. Asst. Johnnie it- Howard, B. Joseph Richard M. Gen.. self, denying appellant’s motion to or Dept, of Buhrman, Div., Attys., Tax U. S. a statement an in- C., Washington, plaintiff- Justice, D. for former who testified before the appellee. jury, but who did not TUTTLE, and trial. WISDOM Before Judges. GOLDBERG, Circuit As to the contention that denying appellant’s trial court erred in PER CURIAM. suppress evidence on the ground that the evidence had been ob appeal This from a conviction agent tained “use of a revenue in lieu appellant of on six counts for violation agent special of a incriminat uncover provisions of Internal the criminal ing evidence,” giving without a Miran 7206(1)) (§§ 7201 Revenue laws warning da and was a violation of tax points conten- raises five aside from the payer’s Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amend tion that evi- there was sufficient rights unsupported by support submitting case to dence to record. The trial court made full find jury, light appellant’s of con- ings respect normalcy with respecting purpose in not tentions showing his original investigation by the revenue of the substantial unre- amount agent to the effect that when he discov ported income on his the three books for possible ered some evidence of criminal years question. action, he notified the that he First, we state that there was get lawyer (the had better a and that he ample support jury’s ver agent) turning was the matter a over to point by appellant dict. The next raised agent.” “special distinguishes fact This is that after the trial court ordered the case from the others this and oth pos documents shown to be that were er circuits which the courts have be session of the for to counsel gun applying, extent, to some some appellant, docu number of protections the persons now afforded accused envelope ments were in a sealed types in other of criminal ac inspection, for later at some tions. party, time unknown as to either but be carefully Finally, we considered envelope trial, fore the the sealed had respect to the record the introduc- with been unsealed and unable was documents, some of tion of certain to ascertain whether docu period were for of time follow- envelope ments sealed agree ing years prosecution. present missing. point, toAs we this position of the appellant’s conclude description for did the effect counsel wholly unscrupulous this as “a occurrence plain not make court which pretrial proof sup with incident” no specific of the several documents were port contention, overstatement ruling objected , re- to and obtain with as facts even contended relevancy spect one, to each as to their appellant. Moreover, specific no relief on the issues involved requested by of the trial years. specific calling court incident judgment court’s attention at the time of trial. is affirmed. FOR REHEARING When at the conclusion PETITION ON case, appeared ment’s that none of the stated, original opinion we In our employees of the defendant who three Jury production Grand had before the Grand had inform- and statement States, been the United the de- follows: following er as fendant motion: thing “MR. There is one I SIGEL: court that the conclude “We *3 record, would like to on the and denying appellant’s motion the that is that has now Government grand jury testi- to indicated that he close case will persons mony testified who with one last technical witness. As Jury, who the Grand but before result, appears that none of wit- the testify before the to not called grand jury nesses who in the appel- denying itself, or in trial the by called the Government statement lant’s by that means that is the likelihood there informer testified who changed that the theory, its Government has grand jury, did not who but the before testify possibly there is that the trial.” grand jury might minutes that indicate was intended to This statement possibly advantage, be to our and we persons were “not called that these again request the Court to allow us to government” the before the all, see it. After not one of these wit- itself, jury it is on the trial because nesses has been called. actually called witnesses The Court overruled this motion. that applies. of the Act We Thereafter, rule Jencks defendant that the three not mean state all three witnesses em who were his grand jury were ployees government who testified and the undertook to on put behalf Smith, by on the witness stand them, cross-examine one of confronting the defendant. him with his Grand testimony. Appellant complains that the witnesses record discloses that the The refusal of the court to make grand jury were an Internal before prej entire minutes available Agent Special em- and three Revenue meeting udiced his cause in this effort ployees defendant. The United of the government any to show incon any wit- of them as did not call States sistencies between the witness’ Upon motion on the trial itself. nesses by prior grand and his before ruled: the court jury. any testimony, jury “The only ruling find no error in the used, will witness statement the trial court with reference to furnished' to counsel for defendant be this matter. day on witness before complains of the The also stand, is on the witness case require dis- court to failure ** * identity government of the closure agreeable both to counsel for “Is says informer, who of the sides ? here, “presumably” em- his brief ployee of the defendant.1 Thq “MR. MAHON: agreeable this, Your Honor. did not use as The agreeable any employee It is “MR. SIGEL: witness grand jury. defendant, Honor.” had testified before the Your who Appellant’s relied here states: which Palmer referred brief “State upon employee Agent of defend- re came from an ments contained Palmer’s presumably quite report was the informant.” ant who ferral make it obvious report in the informant’s information question correctness require dis- refusal to court’s identity of informer closure the rule stated tested therefore 53, States, 353 U.S. Roviaro v. United 639, holds which 1 L.Ed.2d 77 S.Ct. identity of informers protecting the yield policy will important is an showing particularized need to a think case. We an individual in its decision did not err

trial court identity the informer

protect

this case. opinión paragraph of the strike the opin- modify quoted above and

first *4 substituting here. what is said ion respects Motion

In other

Rehearing is overruled. Plaintiff-Appellant, CAMPBELL,

Barbara Defendant-Appellee. M.D., OLIVA,

Peter

United States Court of

Sixth Circuit.

April