Arnold William Leifer v. United States

Sixth Circuit

Arnold William Leifer v. United States

260 F.2d 648

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1959

Docket13464

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 260 F.2d 648 (Arnold William Leifer v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Arnold William Leifer v. United States, 260 F.2d 648 (6th Cir. 1959).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, having waived trial by jury, was convicted for refusing to submit to induction into the armed forces of the United States, after being ordered so to do by his local Board, and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

Appellant contends that the denial of his classification as a full conscientious objector, obliging him to do non-combatant military service, was arbitrary, capricious and that he was illegally denied the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports in furtherance of his contention that he had been denied procedural due process of law.

The record reveals substantial evidence that appellant objected to noncombatant military service, for the sole reason that it would interfere with his missionary activities. This, in our judgment, is not sufficient ground for the allowance of a claim to conscientious objection to non-combatant military service. We are in accord with the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Tomlinson v. United States, 216 F.2d 12. In a prosecution for refusing to submit to induction, the defendant is not entitled to the full report made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but only to a fair résumé thereof. Blalock v. United States, 4 Cir., 247 F.2d 615; United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1, 73 S.Ct. 991, 97 L.Ed. 1417.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

The appellant, having waived trial by jury, was convicted for refusing to submit to induction into the armed forces of the United States, after being ordered so to do by his local Board, and was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment.

Appellant contends that the denial of his classification as a full conscientious objector, obliging him to do non-combatant military service, was arbitrary, capricious and that he was illegally denied the use of the Federal Bureau of Investigation reports in furtherance of his contention that he had been denied procedural due process of law.

The record reveals substantial evidence that appellant objected to noncombatant military service, for the sole reason that it would interfere with his missionary activities. This, in our judgment, is not sufficient ground for the allowance of a claim to conscientious objection to non-combatant military service. We are in accord with the opinion of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Tomlinson v. United States, 216 F.2d 12. In a prosecution for refusing to submit to induction, the defendant is not entitled to the full report made by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, but only to a fair résumé thereof. Blalock v. United States, 4 Cir., 247 F.2d 615; United States v. Nugent, 346 U.S. 1, 73 S.Ct. 991, 97 L.Ed. 1417.

The judgment of the district court is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 F.2d 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/arnold-william-leifer-v-united-states-ca6-1959.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack