United States v. William F. McQuade and Wilma N. McQuade

Bad Law
647 F.2d 938·1981 U.S. App. LEXIS 12550
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 8, 198179-3193California517 words

Opinion

Opinion

The McQuades appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for court-appointed counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d). The district court denied their motion because they would not “submit an affidavit as to their present financial standing .... ” Ap-pellees assert the district court twice told appellants the court could not make a determination of indigency without a financial statement; appellants then filed an affidavit stating they were unable to pay for their defense, but not stating the factual basis for this claim; and appellants thereafter told the court they would not file a financial statement. The appellants do not dispute these facts. Instead they claim they have an absolute constitutional right to court-appointed counsel, regardless of their financial position, and that they are protected from disclosing their financial status by the “Fourth Amendment right to privacy.”

These arguments are without merit. The constitutional right to a state financed defense arises because of “the crucial right of an indigent to reasonably fair equality with those who have adequate financial means to protect their rights,” United States v. Hartfield, 513 F.2d 254, 258 (9th Cir. 1975).…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.