UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
HERBERT KAUFMAN, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the defendant was not entitled to court-appointed counsel as he did not demonstrate indigency, and the trial court did not err in assessing his mental capacity to defend himself.
Herbert Kaufman was convicted by a jury on seven counts of an indictment. He appealed, arguing he was denied his choice of attorney and was mentally i…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Defraud the Government cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Kaufman was tried by a jury and found guilty on seven counts of an eight-count indictment charging him with conspiracy to defraud the government, filing a false claim, perjury, and subornation of perjury. His principal assignments of error are that an attorney of his choice was not appointed to assist in his defense in the district court and that he was not mentally capable of defending himself in those proceedings.
There is no evidence in the record that Kaufman lacked sufficient funds to retain an attorney to represent him. He has not shown either by testimony or by way of an affidavit that he is without adequate resources to provide his own counsel. United States v. White, 344 F. 2d 92 (4th Cir. 1965). On appeal Kaufman was told that he could have counsel if he was indigent, but he refused to execute an affidavit of financial status to establish his indigency. He was not, therefore, entitled to court-appointed representation in the district court or on appeal.
Before sentencing, the district judge received psychiatric reports, but the privately retained doctors who prepared them did not testify. One of the reports expressed an opinion that Kaufman could not conduct his own defense. The district judge, however, previously had ample opportunity to observe Kaufman’s ability to defend himself. We find no error in his refusal to give full credence to the doctor’s opinion, which was formed after the trial.
We find no merit in Kaufman’s other contentions.
The motion for a summary reversal is denied. We deem oral argument to be unnecessary and affirm the decision of the district court.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
United States v. Harris, 707 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1983)
-
United States & Patrick L. Doyle v. Anderson, 567 F.2d 839 (8th Cir. 1977)
-
United States v. Ellsworth, 547 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1976)
Previewing 3 of 7 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Wayland White, Jr., 344 F.2d 92 (4th Cir. 1965)