that the defendants had “corruptly endeavorfed] to influence, obstruct, and impede the due administration of justice”- — language which parallels that of the Omnibus Clause of § 1503. See id. (“[I]t is generally acceptable for the indictment to ‘track’ the words of the statute itself, so long as those words expressly set forth all the elements necessary to constitute the offense intended to be punished.” (citing Hinkle, 637 F.2d at 1157)). Fassnacht and Malanga note, however, that “an indictment that tracks the statutory language can nonetheless be considered deficient if it does not provide enough factual particulars to ‘sufficiently apprise the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet’ ” Id. (quoting Russell, 369 U.S. at 763, 82 S.Ct. 1038); see also Hinkle, 637 F.2d at 1158 (<HOLDING>). Fassnacht and Malanga argue that, in their
holding that the gravamen of the offense is the physical adaptation of the instrument recognizing that an indictment must contain the elements of the offense charged fairly inform a defendant of the charge and enable the defendant to plead double jeopardy as a defense in a future prosecution for the same offense holding an indictment legally insufficient when it failed to inform the defendant of the gravamen of the alleged offense holding evidence legally insufficient holding that an indictment gave sufficient notice when the indictment charged the elements of the offense