194 F.3d 37, 45 (2d Cir.1999) ("While a bill of particulars or discovery cannot save a 'defective indictment,' [United States v.] Panzavecc-hia, 421 F.2d [440,] 442 [(5th Cir.1970)], where the indictment has been found even minimally sufficient, a court may look to the record as a whole in determining whether the defendant is protected from double jeopardy in a subsequent prosecution and whether the defendant has had an adequate opportunity to prepare his defense.'') (citing United States v. Stavroulakis, 952 F.2d 686, 693 (2d Cir.1992); United States v. Sperling, 506 F.2d 1323, 1344 (2d Cir.1974), cert. denied, 420 U.S. 962, 95 S.Ct. 1351, 43 L.Ed.2d 439 (1975)); see also Hartman v. Lee, 283 F.3d 190, 196 n. 5 (4th Cir.2002) (citing Stephens v. Borg, 59 F.3d 932, 934-36 (9th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>); Wilson v. Lindler, 995 F.2d 1256, 1264 (4th
holding error is not harmless when the accused is convicted of firstdegree murder on a general verdict after a trial in which premeditation and felony murder theories are espoused if the felony underlying the felony murder charge is based on a legally unsupportable theory holding that failure of indictment to charge felony murder did not violate constitution when defendant had five days of actual notice of the prosecutions intent to rely on afelonymurder theory pri or to closing argument holding the failure of an indictment to expressly charge causing does not foreclose a subsequent conviction on a causation theory holding that reversal of conviction for felony murder was required where jury failed to find the defendant guilty of the underlying felony as essential element of the felony murder offense holding that in light of the appellants failure to object to the prosecutions rebuttal argument against him any error in the prosecutions argument was harmless