FERGANCHICK ET AL.

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (19 total)

• Bowen v. State, 677 So. 2d 863 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996)
  …st him in representing himself. The court also did not discuss with the appellant the complexity of the case or any defenses or ascertain if he had been threatened or coerced in any way. See Townes v. U.S., 371 F. 2d 930 (4th Cir.1966), cert denied, 387 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 2083, 18 L.Ed.2d 1335 (1967). This inquiry was inadequate. Jones v. State, 584 So. 2d 120 (Fla. 4th DCA 1991); Hayes v. State, 566 So. 2d 340 (Fla. 2d DCA 1990). See Crystal v. State, 616 So. 2d 150 (Fla. 1st DCA 1993); Taylor v. State, 60…
• United States v. Leach, 427 F.2d 1107 (1st Cir. 1970)
  …. Smith, 16 F.R.D. 372, 374-375 (W.D.Mo.1954); 8 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 7.06 [1] (1969). Although the 1966 amendment to Fed.R. Crim.P. 7(f) was intended to liberalize discovery, Walsh v. United States, 371 F. 2d 436 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 387 U. S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 2083, 18 L.Ed.2d 1335 (1967), the power to grant or deny particulars is still entrusted to the sound discretion of the trial court. It has long been established that actual prejudice to the defendant must be shown to justify reversal. Wong…
• United States v. Conway, 415 F.2d 158 (3d Cir. 1969)
  …made clear that amended Rule 7(f) leaves undisturbed the discretionary nature of the granting of a bill of particulars. See, e. g., Wyatt v. United States, 388 F. 2d 395 (10th Cir. 1968); Walsh v. United States, 371 F. 2d 436 (1st Cir.), cert. den. 387 U.S. 947, 87 S.Ct. 2083, 18 L.Ed.2d 1335 (1967). We find no abuse of such discretion in [*162] the District Court’s denial here. Conway’s motion requested inter alia, the names of all employees of the bank and of all eye witnesses to the robbery, as well as…