Court Opinion

ID: 9481470
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:19:52.857525+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:20.130627
License: Public Domain

ALTIMARI, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I write separately out of concern that the breadth and scope of Judge Daly’s opinion *1264might lead some to assume that a bill of particulars is a document that may routinely be offered and received into evidence. In my view, such a conclusion would be unwarranted.
The defendants-appellants sought to introduce the government’s original bill of particulars to demonstrate the similarity of the October and November stock transactions. Judge Lowe denied the offer. On its face, this ruling was proper. Under the unique circumstances of this case, however, the district court’s ruling struck at the very heart of the defense theory. Accordingly, I am in complete agreement with the conclusion that considerations of fairness as well as the truth-seeking function of trial required admission of the bill of particulars.
This conclusion should not be construed, however, as a presumption that bills of particulars are ordinarily admissible at trial. Bills of particulars are generally of minimal probative value, and will tend to confuse the issues and mislead the jury if admitted as evidence. See Fed.R.Evid. 403. Consequently, admission should be the exception, not the rule. Thus, while we now recognize that bills of particulars are not inadmissible per se, the district courts must determine whether the circumstances of a particular case are sufficiently compelling to necessitate admission. In all other respects, I agree with Judge Daly’s well-reasoned opinion.