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.