United States of America, Plaintiff-appellee, v. David Alan De Arman, Defendant-appellant, 453 F.2d 409 (9th Cir. 1972)
Annotate this CaseMorris Futlick, Fresno, Cal., for defendant-appellant.
Dwayne Keyes, U. S. Atty., William R. Allen, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fresno, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Before CHAMBERS, JERTBERG and KOELSCH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
The 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., 426 F.2d 973; and Mims v. United States, 5 Cir., 375 F.2d 135.
Also, to some extent the testimony of the parents, lay persons, buttresses up the government's position.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
