Gregory Lee Merritt v. United States

401 F.2d 768, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5254
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided October 15, 1968·No. 25840·Published·Cited by 15 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant, a Jehovah’s Witness, contending that he is entitled to a ministerial exemption, seeks reversal of a judgment of conviction of failing and refusing to perform civilian work under the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 50 App.U.S.C.A. § 456(j) and 462 (a). We affirm.

Convinced that the factual setting of this case does not take it out of the ambit of well settled precedents, it suffices to say that the record clearly discloses that the appellant wholly failed to discharge his burden of establishing a prima facie case for a ministerial exemption, Dickinson v. United States, 1953, 346 U.S. 389, 74 S.Ct. 152, 98 L.Ed. 132; Witmer v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S.Ct. 392, 99 L.Ed. 428; Matyastik v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 392 F.2d 657; Jones v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 387 F.2d 909; Wiggins v. United States, 5 Cir. 1958, 261 F.2d 113, and that there was substantial basis in fact for the local board’s declination to reopen the appellant’s classification as a conscientious objector and to grant him a ministerial exemption. Estep v. United States, 1946, 327 U.S. 114, 66 S.Ct. 423, 90 L.Ed. 567; Wood v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 373 F.2d 894, vacated, other grounds, 389 U.S. 20, 88 S.Ct. 3, 19 L.Ed.2d 20; Greer v. United States, 5 Cir. 1967, 378 F.2d 931; Fitts v. United States, 5 Cir. 1964, 334 F.2d 416.

Appellant’s further assertion that his constitutional rights have been violated because of the absence of provisions in the Selective Service Act and Regulations for representation by counsel before the local board, for compulsory process, and for the confrontation of witnesses against him, is without merit. The procedure under the draft law and classification by a local board is in no way penal, nor is it a criminal trial with the right to be represented by counsel, and to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses. United States v. Capson, 10 Cir. 1965, 347 F.2d 959, 962; Imboden v. United States, 6 Cir. 1952, 194 F.2d 508, 513, cert. denied, 343 U.S. 957, 72 S.Ct. 1052, 96 L.Ed. 1357.

Affirmed.

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

Gregory Lee Merritt v. United States, 401 F.2d 768, 1968 U.S. App. LEXIS 5254 (5th Cir. 1968).

401 F.2d 768 (Gregory Lee Merritt v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

United States v. Maurice Raymond Turcotte
487 F.2d 417 (Fifth Circuit, 1973)
Levine v. Selective Service Local Board No. 18
458 F.2d 1281 (Second Circuit, 1972)
United States v. James Adam Wood
454 F.2d 765 (Fourth Circuit, 1972)
United States v. Reeves
325 F. Supp. 179 (M.D. Florida, 1971)
United States v. George Edgar Baird
427 F.2d 521 (Sixth Circuit, 1970)
Julita David Robertson v. United States
417 F.2d 440 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Thomas Darrell Camp v. United States
413 F.2d 419 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Verstell Willis
409 F.2d 830 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
Franklin Henry Chaney v. United States
406 F.2d 809 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Brooks
298 F. Supp. 254 (W.D. Louisiana, 1969)
William Clyde Fleming v. United States
406 F.2d 1247 (Fifth Circuit, 1969)
United States v. Mendoza
295 F. Supp. 673 (E.D. New York, 1969)
Gary Herndon McCoy v. United States
403 F.2d 896 (Fifth Circuit, 1968)