Summary
explaining that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that a report prepared by a special police officer working for McDonald's was not in the government's possession for purposes of the Jencks Act because there was "no evidence that it was ever provided to the prosecution or police, or that it was used as part of their investigation"
Summary of this case from Copeland v. United StatesOpinion
17-CM-1293
04-15-2019
Jalil RAHMAN v. US
DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION
Affirmed.