605 F.2d 181 (1979)
Defendant was convicted of willful failure to file his tax returns. On appeal, defendant argued that the district court erred in denying his request for a continuance in order to obtain counsel.
- The court found that the grant or denial of the continuance was in the broad discretion of the trial judge.
- Furthermore, defendant was given ample opportunity to do so.
- Thus, the fact that defendant's motion for a continuance was denied and defendant had to proceed at trial pro se did not constitute error.
- Defendant also argued that the district court erred when it gave a jury instruction that attempted to explain burden shifting.
- The district court found that defendant, proceeding without counsel, did not object to the charge.
- Furthermore, the court found that the instruction, touching at most on the burden of production and buried in a charge that correctly placed the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt on the government, did not constitute error.
- The district court's decision was affirmed.
District court's decision that convicted defendant of failure to file his tax returns and denied his motion for continuance in order to obtain counsel was affirmed. The district court did not err in denying defendant's motion because defendant had ample time to obtain counsel.
Recommended Supplements and Study Aids for Evidence
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.