United States v. Nobles
United States Supreme Court
422 U.S. 225 (1975)
Nobles (defendant) was tried in federal court and convicted for robbing a bank. The only evidence linking Nobles to the crime was the identification testimony of a bank teller and salesman who were present at the time of the robbery. The defense tried to impeach these eyewitnesses and hired an investigator. This investigator interviewed both eyewitnesses and preserved some written notes. When testifying at trial, defense counsel used these notes to attempt to impeach the witnesses during cross-examination. With the bank teller, the defense asked if he remembered telling the investigator that he had seen only the back of the head of the person identified as the perpetrator. When he replied that he did not remember making that statement, he was allowed, despite the defense’s objections, to refresh his recollection by looking at a part of the investigator’s notes. The prosecution too was allowed to examine the relevant part of the notes. The witness then testified that although the report says that he saw only the back of the head, he still had seen more than that and insisted that Nobles was the robber. With the salesman, defense asked whether he remembered making the statement that “all blacks look alike to me.” After denying making this statement, the prosecution asked to see the document, defense objected, and the court refused the prosecution’s request. The court added that it would order disclosure of the document if the investigator testified concerning the witnesses’ alleged statements. Nobles called the investigator to the stand. The court said that a copy of the report (inspected and edited) would have to be submitted to the prosecution at the end of the investigator’s impeachment testimony. The defense refused to produce the report, and the court did not allow the impeachment testimony. The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said that the lower court decision was reversible error, and the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Powell, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 166,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 13,800 briefs, keyed to 187 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.