# United States v. Louis Martin Radetsky, A/K/A L. M. Radetsky

> Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · May 26, 1976 · 535 F.2d 556

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462727

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Louis Martin RADETSKY, A/K/A L. M. Radetsky, Defendant-Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 26, 1976
- **Citations:** 535 F.2d 556
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Lewis
- **Judges:** Lewis, Holloway, Barrett
- **Cited by:** 113 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- **Red flag:** Overruled on other grounds by United States v. Sammy G. Daily and Frederik A. Figge, 921 F.2d 994 (1991).
- Negative treatments: 1
- Distinguished by: 0
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462727

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that a sufficient indictment "is of paramount importance" and "required . . . to avoid [a] conviction on facts not found, or perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury that indicted [the defendant]"
- holding that a sufficient indictment “is of paramount importance” and “required ... to avoid [a] conviction on facts not found, or perhaps not even presented to, the grand jury that indicted [the defendant]”
- rejecting argument that the defendant should have been prosecuted under specific statute criminalizing the making of false statements in connection with medicare claims rather than § 1001 because there was no evidence of an intent to make the specific statute a substitute for …

## Opinion text

LEWIS, Chief Judge
(dissenting).
I dissent from Part II of my Brother Holloway’s opinion relating to the submission of the bill of particulars to the jury and my Brother Barrett’s views on that aspect of the case.
This ease is by its very nature one of complexity but with careful preparation and presentation that complexity need not have resulted in complete confusion. I am fearful that defendant was convicted on grounds other than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. And, to me, we seem to be perpetuating that confusion.
Recognizing that a bill of particulars is a self-serving prosecutorial document and neither part of the indictment nor evidence, the main opinion states that the prosecution gained an advantage by submitting the document to the jury but the defendant was not prejudiced by such untraditional procedure. But the trial judge termed submission of the bill of particulars as “almost a necessity if the jury is to return an intelligent verdict.” In turn, the prosecutor indicated that without submission of the bill of particulars the jury “may well convict on one of the items listed on the request for payment which hasn’t even been challenged by the United States.”
In sum, I dissent because I believe that a bill of particulars is inherently a self-serving document created by the prosecution which should never be submitted to the jury absent a formal rule and that in this case the prejudice to defendant is glaringly apparent. I would grant a new trial on each count.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9462727. Public record. Not legal advice.