¶1*581Mr. George W. Shadoan, Washington, D. C. (appointed by the District Court), for appellant.
¶2Mr. Tim Murphy, Asst. U. S. Atty. with whom Messrs. David C. Acheson, U. S. Atty., and Frank Q. Nebeker and Alfred Hantman, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
¶3Before Bazelon, Chief Judge, and EdGERTON and Wright, Circuit Judges.
¶6Appellant, a taxi driver, was convicted on both counts of an indictment charging violations1 of the narcotic laws. The charges stem from a seizure of narcotics from appellant’s taxi after it was double-parked discharging a passenger. The principal question presented on the motion to suppress, and on the merits, concerned the credibility2 of the Government’s principal witness, Officer Hutcherson.3
¶7Hutcherson admittedly gave several different versions4 of the ineident in suit. But appellant’s repeated motions for production of Hutcherson’s grand jury testimony, or, in the alternative, for an in camera inspection thereof by the court, were denied, apparently on the theory, as the Government argues in brief, that “any possible material inconsistencies which might be revealed by an in camera inspection … would be merely cumulative …
¶8Not having seen the grand jury testimony,5 the trial judge was in no position even to speculate on what effect its disclosure might have had on Hutcherson’s credibility, with him or with the jury. We cannot assume that Hutcherson was so discredited by the disclosed inconsistencies that further discrediting was impossible. In order to deny the motion to suppress the evidence, and to convict, some part of Hutcherson’s disclosed inconsistent testimony had to have been credited. Disclosure of his grand jury testimony might well have been helpful to the court, and to the jury, in determining which part, if any, should have been.
¶9Since the District Court did not have the benefit of Hutcherson’s grand jury testimony when it made its ruling on appellant’s motion to suppress, we will remand the case with instructions to the trial court to grant the motion to produce 6 and then reconsider its action, *582after hearing, on the motion to suppress. If it adheres to its former action on the motion to suppress, it will then determine whether the grand jury testimony is materially inconsistent with Hutcherson's testimony on trial. If so, a new trial should be granted. See DeBinder v. United States, supra, Note 6.
¶10So ordered.