Opinion ID: 382978
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Defendant's Discovery

Text: 28 Appellant contends that two defects in the discovery process require reversal. On August 14, 1979, the day before trial, the government provided defense counsel with a chart prepared by Commander Gehring. The chart was a visual display of Commander Gehring's explanation of his expert opinion. Appellee's Brief, at 27. Among other things, the chart depicted the ocean currents in the Gulf of Mexico. With minor modifications, the chart became Exhibit 27 and was used by Commander Gehring when he testified. 29 Appellant argues that this chart was a report within the meaning of Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(D). A month prior to trial on July 13, 1979 the defendant had requested all reports and examinations prepared by government experts. Appellant asserts that the government's failure to provide the report earlier constitutes a flagrant violation of his discovery request. He further urges that prejudice resulted because it was impossible to become familiar with the chart overnight without a background in oceanography. 30 The government responds that Commander Gehring's chart cannot properly be considered the report of a physical or mental examination or of a scientific test or experiment. Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(a)(1)(D). Our disposition of the issue does not require us to reach the government's contention. In the Fifth Circuit a failure to comply with Rule 16(a) is not reversible in the absence of a showing of prejudice. United States v. Pascual, 606 F.2d 561, 565 (5th Cir. 1979); United States v. Arcentales, 532 F.2d 1046, 1050 (5th Cir. 1976). The record in this case reveals no such prejudice. A broad assertion that DeWeese's counsel lacked adequate time for study of the chart does not constitute prejudice sufficient to require reversal. 31 Appellant next argues that the government violated the court's omnibus order. Under this order both parties were to exchange witness lists by July 20, 1979. On the day before trial, August 14, 1979, the government informed the appellant that Commander Gehring would be testifying. As a result, appellant complains that he was unable to properly prepare for the cross-examination of Commander Gehring. Appellant urges that there was no excuse for his not being informed about this crucial witness as the government obviously knew of Commander Gehring's existence long before the day of trial. Appellant's Brief, at 37. 32 We can find no excuse for the government's failing to inform the appellant in a timely fashion that Caption Gehring would testify. Certainly his testimony is a crucial part of the government's case. We agree that it is inconceivable that the government learned of the Commander one day before trial. 33 To warrant reversal, however, the appellant must make a showing of prejudice. United States v. Phillips, 585 F.2d 745, 747 (5th Cir. 1978). He has failed to do so. Thus, although we strongly condemn the failure of the government to abide by its obligations under the omnibus proceeding, we cannot reverse appellant's conviction absent a showing of prejudice. 34 Finally, appellant argues that the Cowboy was depicted prejudicially on Commander Gehring's chart. We find this argument to be frivolous.