The following excerpt is from Sperling v. U.S., 692 F.2d 223 (2nd Cir. 1982):
If the failure to comply with the Jencks Act were a constitutional error--e.g. insufficiency of the evidence--the 1973 convictions would have been reversed outright and a new trial would have been barred on double jeopardy grounds. Here, however, vacating the convictions on the substantive counts and remanding the cases for a new trial was appropriate, see, e.g., Goldberg v. United States, 425 U.S. 94, 111-12 (1976), because there was no constitutional infirmity in those convictions.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.