Federal CDs in the Ninth Circuit + sister-circuit jurisdictions adopting the Henthorn rule.

Discovery Demand, United States v. Henthorn officer-personnel material

Pre-drafted Henthorn demand for in-camera review of testifying officers' personnel files. 9th Cir. 1991 grounded.

Serve the Henthorn demand the moment the witness list lands. Force the government to canvass every testifying officer's personnel file in camera, not as a defense-counsel scavenger hunt.

“the government has a duty to examine personnel files upon a defendant's request for their production.”
United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29, 30–31 (9th Cir. 1991)(opens in new tab)

Order, $97 →

PDF delivered to your inbox.

What this template gives you that the canned-form-book demand does not.

01.
Not undated boilerplate: the United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29 authority is source-linked to the opinion, so you confirm it before you serve. AUSAs routinely punt Henthorn requests with 'no Brady material in file', Henthorn requires the canvass first, the conclusion second.
02.
Reply-brief framework cites Ritchie (480 U.S. 39, 60) on the in-camera review backstop and Brooks (966 F.2d 1500, D.C. Cir. 1992) for cross-circuit adoption.
03.
Demand language pre-cites the FOIA / Touhy framework for back-stop disclosure if the AUSA refuses to canvass.

Authorities inside · source-checkable

The controlling authority this template is built on.

Before you buy, see the spine of the deliverable. Verbatim quotes are reproduced word for word from the opinion they cite; any attributed summary is labelled as a summary, never dressed up as a quote. Each entry links to its source so you can confirm it yourself. Nothing is paraphrased into a citation it does not support.

4Controlling authorities cited

4Verbatim opinion quotes

4Checkable source URLs

2Independent source hosts

Lead controlling authorityVerbatim quote
“the government has a duty to examine personnel files upon a defendant's request for their production.”
United States v. Henthorn, 931 F.2d 29, 30–31 (9th Cir. 1991) · 931 F.2d at 30–31Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“The individual prosecutor has a duty to learn of any favorable evidence known to the others acting on the government's behalf in the case, including the police.”
Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 437 (1995) · 514 U.S. at 437Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“When the 'reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,' nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule.”
Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154 (1972) · 405 U.S. at 154Verify the source
Supporting authorityVerbatim quote
“We now hold that the suppression by the prosecution of evidence favorable to an accused upon request violates due process where the evidence is material either to guilt or to punishment, irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.”
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 87 (1963) · 373 U.S. at 87Verify the source

Provenance: every citation above carries a source URL that was fetched and confirmed reachable when the template was authored. A citation without a working source URL does not ship. Counsel of record adapts the motion language to circuit-specific precedent and the facts of the case before filing.

Order intake.

Discovery, Henthorn demand, Case details

Delivery email *

Demand PDF delivered here. Stripe checkout uses this address.

Case identifier *

Do not enter the actual client name. Use any internal identifier, BenchRecon never needs the real name.

Jurisdiction *

Federal district the matter is pending in. Stamps the demand cover and informs which local-rule timeline overlays the FRCP 16 baseline.

Firm name (optional)

Billing entity, rendered on the demand cover and included on the invoice when provided.

Privilege handling

Intake data is stored under attorney work-product principles. BenchRecon does not access the intake payload outside of demand generation. Do not enter privileged client communications, defense strategy, or identifying details, submit only the case parameters this form requests.

Charged after you submit. 7-day full refund.

Frequently asked questions.

What does the demand contain?

Eight sections: cover (your case identifier + jurisdiction stamped on), scope of demand, the lead authority's verbatim holding with source URL, attaching-precedent citations, the pre-drafted demand language (~250 words editable), reply-brief framework anticipating government opposition, response deadlines + local-rule overlay, and the methods + source URLs bibliography.

Is this legal advice?

No. The template is a pre-trial litigation aid modeled on the published constitutional + statutory authority for federal-criminal discovery. Counsel of record adapts the demand language to the controlling circuit's doctrine and the facts of the case before serving.

How fast is delivery?

Stripe checkout completes in seconds; the PDF is emailed to the address you provide. Templates are pre-built, there is no per-case data pipeline running.

Do you cite anything I cannot independently verify?

No. Every citation in every demand carries a source URL stored alongside. Lead authorities are Brady 373 U.S. 83, Giglio 405 U.S. 150, Fed. R. Crim. P. 16, and Henthorn 931 F.2d 29. All public-domain, linked to Cornell LII or law.resource.org.

Refund policy?

7-day full refund, no questions asked.