TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Herbert Kaufman

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Herbert KAUFMAN, Appellant

United States v. Kaufman, 452 F.2d 1202 (4th Cir. 1972)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
March 20, 1972
Docket
No. 71-1461
Judges
Butzner, Russell, Field
Citations
452 F.2d 1202

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 3 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.

Cited by 11 cases

View all citing references →
1977: 21979: 11981: 11983: 11987: 11988: 11992: 11993: 11999: 12005: 119772026peak 1977 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. United States v. Harold Owen407 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2005)
  2. United States v. Lawrence Sarsoun834 F.2d 1358 (7th Cir. 1988)
  3. United States v. William F. McQuade and Wilma N. McQuade647 F.2d 938 (9th Cir. 1981)
  4. United States v. John L. Harris707 F.2d 653 (2d Cir. 1983)
  5. State v. Glasure724 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
  6. United States v. W. Vaughn Ellsworth547 F.2d 1096 (9th Cir. 1977)

Most recent

  1. United States v. Harold Owen407 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2005)
  2. State v. Glasure724 N.E.2d 1165 (Ohio Ct. App. 1999)
  3. United States v. Santiago-Fraticelli818 F. Supp. 27 (D.P.R. 1993)
  4. United States v. Tommy A. Davis, (Two Cases)958 F.2d 47 (4th Cir. 1992)
  5. United States v. Lawrence Sarsoun834 F.2d 1358 (7th Cir. 1988)
  6. United States v. Sidney Barcelon833 F.2d 894 (10th Cir. 1987)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. White, Jr., 344 F.2d 92 (4th Cir. 1965) 4

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list