United States v. Garcia, 562 F.3d 947 (8th Cir. 2009)
The trial court erred in failing to conduct an in camera review of cooperating witnesses’ PSR’s.
United States v. Scroggins, 379 F.3d 233 (5th Cir. 2004)
The trial court erred in declining to review the co-conspirators’ PSR’s to determine if any Brady or Giglio information was contained in their reports.
United States v. Alvarez, 358 F.3d 1194 (9th Cir. 2004)
The Ninth Circuit discusses the issues raised when a defendant seeks to have the district court review a witness’s presentence report. If the defendant has a basis for claiming that Brady information is contained in the file, the trial court should conduct an in camera review of the file.
United States v. Moore, 949 F.2d 68 (2d Cir. 1991)
When a defendant requests an opportunity to review a pre-sentence report of an accomplice-witness, the trial court should review the pre-sentence report to determine if there is any exculpatory information, or impeaching information contained therein and whether there is a compelling need to reveal that information to the defense.
United States v. Trevino, 89 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 1996)
The court considered the question of when the trial court is required to review a government witness’s PSR at the request of the defendant, to determine if there is any Brady information contained therein. The court concluded that a district court is under no duty to conduct an in camera examination of a requested PSR unless the accused has first clearly specified the information contained in the report that he expects will reveal exculpatory or impeachment evidence.