at the close of the prosecution's case. 6 . The laboratory technician testified that he observed sperm cells on the vaginal slides prepared during the Dean’s examination at the hospital. T.307. He did not testify that there were sperm cells on the anal slides. 7 . Other federal courts have held that deficient indictments were held not to violate the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments where the defendant received actual notice of the charges against him. E.g., United States v. Walsh .1993) (concluding that constructive amendment of indictment did not violate habeas petitioner's Sixth Amendment right when he received actual notice of prosecution’s theory of case "at least before the jury was sworn, and almost certainly weeks before”); Hulstine v. Morris, 819 F.2d 861, 863-64 (8th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); Fawcett v. Bablitch, 962 F.2d 617, 618 (7th
holding that lack of notice of charges in disciplinary proceedings violates the due process clause holding that reading the indictment as a whole we have no doubt that the defendant was fully aware of the charges against him holding that due process requirements may be satisfied if a defendant receives actual notice of the charges against him even if the indictment or information is deficient concluding that defective indictment did not violate defendants sixth amendment right because defendant was made fully aware of charges and potential punishment during guilty plea proceedings holding that a criminal defendant is entitled to know the charges against him and to be tried solely upon the charges against him internal quotation marks and citation omitted recognizing that article 2810c provides that indictment or information may not be amended over defendants objection as to form or substance if indictment or information charges defendant with additional or different offense or if substantial rights of defendant are prejudiced