726 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1984), 83-3199, United States v. Vesich

Docket Nº:83-3199.
Citation:726 F.2d 168
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony J. VESICH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:February 15, 1984
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 168

726 F.2d 168 (5th Cir. 1984)

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

Anthony J. VESICH, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 83-3199.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

February 15, 1984

Page 169

Daniel J. Markey, Jr., New Orleans, La., for defendant-appellant.

John P. Volz, U.S. Atty., Harry W. McSherry, Ronald A. Fonseca, Lance M. Africk, Asst. U.S. Attys., New Orleans, La., for plaintiff-appellee.

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.

PER CURIAM:

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP