U.S. v. Vesich, 83-3199
| Decision Date | 15 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-3199,83-3199 |
| Citation | 726 F.2d 168 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony J. VESICH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana.
(Opinion January 24, 1984, 5th Circuit, 724 F.2d 451)
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
Before RUBIN, GARWOOD, and JOLLY, Circuit Judges.
Defendant Vesich moves for rehearing of our affirmance of his conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1503 and 1623. Defendant brings to our attention that our prior opinion does not specifically discuss his claim that he was improperly denied a bill of particulars specifying the pending judicial proceeding obstructed by him. We have again considered this issue and find it to be without merit.
The purpose of a bill of particulars is to inform the defendant of the charge against him in sufficient detail to enable him to prepare his defense and to minimize surprise at trial. United States v. Montemayor, 703 F.2d 109, 117 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 89, 78 L.Ed.2d 97 (1983); United States v. Hawkins, 661 F.2d 436, 451-52 (5th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 991, 102 S.Ct. 2274, 73 L.Ed.2d 1287, 457 U.S. 1137, 102 S.Ct. 2967, 73 L.Ed.2d 1355, --- U.S. ----, 103 S.Ct. 72, 74 L.Ed.2d 71 (1982); United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 563 (5th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 946, 100 S.Ct. 1345, 63 L.Ed.2d 781, 446 U.S. 912, 100 S.Ct. 1842, 64 L.Ed.2d 266 (1980). The denial of a bill of particulars is within the sound discretion of the trial judge and can be reversed only when the defendant was actually surprised at trial and prejudiced in his substantial rights. Montemayor at 117.
Vesich has not alleged that he was surprised at trial, and it plainly appears that he was not. Defendant's counsel were provided with a pretrial memorandum by the government acknowledging the "pendency" requirement of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 and detailing the facts establishing pendency. The government's proof at trial closely tracked the memorandum and the trial court's instructions, to which defendant made no relevant objection, submitted the case to the jury in a manner consistent with the prosecution's theory as outlined in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Lester, s. 83-1242
...obstruction of justice conviction for attempting to persuade a potential grand jury witness to testify falsely), reh'g denied, 726 F.2d 168 (5th Cir.1984). So interpreted, section 1503 embraces the conduct of Lester and McGill who are charged, inter alia, with conspiracy to obstruct justice......
-
U.S. v. Williams, 87-2929
...civil deposition involving similar questions. See, e.g., United States v. Vesich, 724 F.2d 451, 461 (5th Cir.1984), reh'g denied, 726 F.2d 168 (1984). The prosecutor's knowledge that the appellants had lied in their civil depositions does not lead to a presumption that the appellants would ......
-
U.S. v. Carlock
...of a bill to rise to the level of reversible error, it must cause surprise at trial and substantial prejudice. United States v. Vesich, 726 F.2d 168, 169 (5th Cir.1984). Carlock, Sr., asserts that he needed dates, times, and places to prepare his defense. We are directed to no identifiable ......
-
United States v. Fatty
...adequate defense preparation with the exercise of due diligence and to allow a defendant to plead double jeopardy. United States v. Vesich, 726 F.2d 168, 169 (5th Cir. 1984). A bill of particulars should not be used to compel the United States to produce a "detailed exposition of its eviden......