United States v. David Alan De Arman
453 F.2d 409
9th Cir.1972Check TreatmentThe judgment of conviction in this selective service (mutilating and destroying a draft card) case is affirmed.
An insanity defense was presented. A psychiatrist testified for the defendant and none testified for the government. But here on cross-examination the expert was badly shaken. So we believe that a counter-expert was not required here. Cf. United States v. Ingman, 9 Cir.,
Also, to some extent the testimony of the parents, lay persons, buttresses up the government’s position.
