Case Name: Albert L. HARMON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1958-01-09
Citations: 251 F.2d 379
Docket Number: No. 13879
Parties: Albert L. HARMON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 251
Pages: 379–381

Head Matter:
Albert L. HARMON, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 13879.
United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Dec. 3, 1957.
Decided Jan. 9, 1958.
Petition for Rehearing In Banc Denied Feb. 5, 1958.
Mr. Samuel J. L’Hommedieu, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. Emmett E. Tucker, Jr., Washington, D. C. (both appointed by this Court) was on the brief, for appellant.
Mr. E. Tillman Stirling, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Oliver Gasch, U. S. Atty., Lewis Carroll and Arthur J. McLaughlin, Asst. U. S. Attys., were on the brief, for appellee.
Before Edgerton, Chief Judge, and Danaher and Bastían, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURrAM.
On this appeal from a conviction for narcotics violation appellant urges error because of (1) the denial of a motion for a bill of particulars, (2) the alleged refusal of the Government to honor a subpoena duces tecum, and (8) the action of the trial court in distributing a handbook to jurors at the time they qualified for service.
We find no error affecting substantial rights. The action of the trial court in denying the bill of particulars was well within the discretion of the court, particularly as appellant's counsel was furnished with the entire file of the Government and, after this, made no further motion for the bill. The record discloses that prior to the trial appellant was given all reports in the possession or under the control of the Government. Notes of the police officer involved were ordered to be given to defense counsel and this was done. It is not shown that appellant did not receive any statement that was in fact in existence.
Appellant's point as to the production of the jurors' handbook was not raised in the District Court and it is now too late to make complaint. Further, it is not shown that the handbook was in any way prejudicial to the rights of appellant.
Affirmed.