Case Name: UNITED STATES of America v. Daniel M. EICHBERG, Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1971-01-21
Citations: 439 F.2d 620
Docket Number: Nos. 22829, 22830
Parties: UNITED STATES of America v. Daniel M. EICHBERG, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 439
Pages: 620–628

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America v. Daniel M. EICHBERG, Appellant.
Nos. 22829, 22830.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued Feb. 27, 1970.
Decided Jan. 21, 1971.
Bazelon, Chief Judge, concurred and filed opinion.
Mr. Lawrence E. Freedman, Alexandria, Va. (appointed by this Court) for appellant.
Mr. Edwin K. Hall, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Messrs. Thomas A. Flan-nery, U. S.. Atty., and John A. Terry, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellee. Messrs. David G. Bress, U. S. Atty. at the time the record was filed, and Roger E. Zuckerman, Asst. U. S. Atty., also entered appearances for ap-pellee.
Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and WRIGHT and McGOWAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This is an appeal from a criminal conviction, in which the principal defense was insanity. Appellant contends that the trial judge should have granted his motion of acquittal, because the government failed to prove responsibility beyond a reasonable doubt.
There may be a defendant so clearly and so seriously disabled that a jury would be compelled to doubt his responsibility, and this court would reverse a conviction on that ground. But ordinarily, "in view of the complicated nature of the decision to be made — intertwining moral, legal, and medical judgments" the jury's verdict must stand. The expert evidence in this case presented a classic question for the jury on the issue of responsibility. Accordingly, the conviction must be Affirmed.
. Appellant also contends that he was deprived of his right to counsel at the psychiatric staff conference held to inquire into the question of criminal responsibility. See Thornton v. Corcoran, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 407 F.2d 695 (1969). The point was neither raised below nor pressed at argument on appeal. Moreover, both the staff conference and the trial occurred before our decision in Thornton. Finally, the record does not indicate that appellant was prejudiced in his cross-examination of the government's expert witness. We prefer to await more appropriate circumstances for considering the difficult questions involved in a properly presented claim of that type.
. E. g., Frigillana v. United Sttaes, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 328, 307 F.2d 665 (1962); Isaac v. United States, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 34, 284 F.2d 168 (1960); see King v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 318, 324, 372 F.2d 383, 389 (1967).
. Adams v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 137, 142, 413 F.2d 411, 416 (1969), quoting King v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. at 324, 372 F.2d at 389; accord, Parman v. United States, 130 U.S.App.D.C. 188, 196-197, 399 F.2d 559, 567-568 (1968).