New Location, Same Tradition: Goldstein & Orr Has Moved Offices Learn More

Client Testimonials
  • "I'm very impressed how Mrs. Orr handled everything, she is very professional and I recommend Mrs. Orr if your in need an attorney for a white collar case!!!" by Anonymous Former Client Read More
  • "The best of the best above all the rest. Accept no substitutes." by Richard R. Read More
  • "They are next level on intelligence and understanding. My full respect to these attorneys." by Amber R. Read More
  • "They're the best, very thorough." by Doug T. Read More
  • "I was so fortunate and privileged to have Mr. Goldstein in my corner. You will find none better." by Stephen Read More


Pursuant to the mandatory disclosure provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(2)(C) (requiring agencies to make public “administrative staff manuals”); DEA has been required to disclose portions of their agents’ manuals dealing with informants nad search warrants. And the so-called “law enforcement exception” [§ 552(b)(7)] is inapplicable since that provision relates only to records compiled in the course of an investigation directed at specific persons, and then only if disclosure would reveal investigative techniques and procedures. Those portions dealing with planning prior to entry, however, were exempted from disclosure as same constituted an “internal presonell” matter in which the general public could not reasonably be expected to have an interest [§ 552(b)(2)]. Sladek v. Bensinger, 605 F.2d 899 (5th Cir. 1979).

See also           Jordan v. U.S. Department of Justice, 591 F.2d 753 (D.C. Cir. 1978);

Contra v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 587 F.2d 544 (2d Cir. 1978).

Even in cases where the government fails to produce the results or reports of scientific tests in violation of Rule 16(a)(1)(D), many courts have still required that the accused demonstrate prejudice. US v. Deweese, 632 F.2d 1267 (5th Cir. 1980). In Gorham v. Wainwright, 588 F.2d 178 (5th Cir. 1979), the government did not deliver defendant’s counsel a F.B.I. lab report which was conclusive of guilt until after the trial had begun. The court affirmed the conviction finding no prejudice because defendant’s counsel asked for and received a ten-minute recess to study the report and did not request a continuance. See also US v. Eisler, 567 F.2d 814 (8th Cir. 1977); US

  1. Phillips, 585 F.2d 745 (5th Cir. 1978) (noting Government’s failure to disclose handwriting analyst’s report did not prejudice defendant); Norris v. Slayton, 540 F.2d 1241 (4th Cir. 1976); US
  2. Beaver, 524 F.2d 963 (5th Cir. 1975), cert. den., 425 US 905 (1976).
(210) 226-1463
  1. Attorneys
  2. Results
  3. Contact