Opinion ID: 778714
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: denial of bill of particulars

Text: 9 Hernandez next argues that the district court erred when it overruled his motion for a bill of particulars. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(f) states: 10 The court may direct the filing of a bill of particulars. A motion for a bill of particulars may be made before arraignment or within ten days after arraignment or at such later time as the court may permit. A bill of particulars may be amended at any time subject to such conditions as justice requires. 11 A bill of particulars serves to inform the defendant of the nature of the charge against him with sufficient precision to enable him to prepare for trial, to avoid or minimize the danger of surprise at trial, and to enable him to plead his acquittal or conviction in bar of another prosecution for the same offense when the indictment is too vague and indefinite. United States v. Birmley, 529 F.2d 103, 108 (6th Cir.1976). To establish reversible error from the denial of a motion for a bill of particulars, a defendant must show that he was actually surprised at trial and suffered prejudice from the denial. United States v. Fleming, 8 F.3d 1264, 1265 (8th Cir.1993). 12 Here, the district court denied Hernandez' first motion for a bill of particulars because Hernandez had failed to comply with the terms of the court's progression order. However, upon Hernandez' counsel submitting to the government questions covering essentially the same information requested in the bill of particulars, the government provided counsel with detailed responses. In comparing the responses submitted to Hernandez' counsel with the record, we find that the responses provided counsel with information that precluded surprise, and that Hernandez fails to establish that he was actually prejudiced by the denial. 13