United States v. Herbert Kaufman

452 F.2d 1202
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedMarch 20, 1972
Docket71-1461
StatusPublished
Cited by15 cases

This text of 452 F.2d 1202 (United States v. Herbert Kaufman) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Herbert Kaufman, 452 F.2d 1202 (4th Cir. 1972).

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Harold Owen
407 F.3d 222 (Fourth Circuit, 2005)
State v. Glasure
724 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Court of Appeals, 1999)
United States v. Santiago-Fraticelli
818 F. Supp. 27 (D. Puerto Rico, 1993)
United States v. Tommy A. Davis, (Two Cases)
958 F.2d 47 (Fourth Circuit, 1992)
United States v. Lawrence Sarsoun
834 F.2d 1358 (Seventh Circuit, 1988)
United States v. Sidney Barcelon
833 F.2d 894 (Tenth Circuit, 1987)
United States v. John L. Harris
707 F.2d 653 (Second Circuit, 1983)
State v. Byrnes
404 A.2d 495 (Supreme Court of Rhode Island, 1979)
United States v. Anderson
567 F.2d 839 (Eighth Circuit, 1977)
United States v. W. Vaughn Ellsworth
547 F.2d 1096 (Ninth Circuit, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
452 F.2d 1202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-herbert-kaufman-ca4-1972.