United States v. Christian Robert Merkle

444 F.2d 411, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 9422

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
• Decided: June 21, 1971
• Docket: 19149_1
• Status: Published

Opinions

OPINION OF THE COURT

VAN DUSEN, Circuit Judge.

Registrant Merkle has appealed from a judgment and commitment dated June 24, 1970, for refusing to be inducted into the Armed Services of the United States in violation of 50 U.S.C.App. § 462(a).

On February 9, 1965, Merkle filed his filled out questionnaire. Under series 8 re conscientious objection if any, he stated “does not apply." In that same year he registered as a student in Pennsylvania State College; later he transferred to Duquesne University. He went through all of his college years with the classification of II-S (student deferment). As his undergraduate course was drawing to a close in 1968, he applied for a conscientious objector classification on March 29 and supported his application by letters filed in June 1968. In June 1968, Merkle was reclassified as I-A. He asked for a personal appearance before his local draft board which was granted. Thereafter the board classified him as I-A. He requested an appeal which was granted. The Appeal Board classified him I-A. He was given a Presidential appeal, after which he was classified I-A.¹

We have concluded that the March 19, 1971, decision of this court in United States v. Crownfield, 439 F.2d 839 (3d Cir.), requires a reversal of the above-mentioned June 24, 1970 judgment because of a denial of the procedural principle adopted in Scott v. Commanding Officer, 431 F.2d 1132, 1137 (3d Cir.1970). The information submitted to the local board in the spring of 1968 made out a prima facie case for a conscientious objector classification,² and the board did not submit its reasons to the registrant as required by Crownfield, supra.

The claim for exemption on registrant’s Form 150 stated:

“(B) I am, by reason of my religious training and belief, conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form and I am further conscientiously opposed to participation in noncombatant training and service in the Armed Forces. I, therefore, claim exemption from both combatant and noncombatant training and service in the Armed Forces.”

Sheets attached to the form included this language:

“I believe in a Supreme Being. * * * This Supreme Being is the Creative Force of Love, that is always at work, not only in man, but throughout all of nature. It is the love that allows one man to understand another; it is the life-force that refreshes nature each spring. * * *

“I believe that all living things are holy. Each man has infinite intrinsic worth.

“In a man, the Supreme Being is felt as love, as care. * * *

“I believe that each man is of the same Source. Life is a gift in which all men share equally. No man can presume the right over life and death of another. * * *

“Love and understanding among men are delicate; they are destroyed by violence and war. To kill another man is an act of despair and blindness. I believe that to kill another is to sacrifice love and understanding in oneself. I am not willing to do this. I cannot presume the right over another man’s life.

“Because of my beliefs, I will refuse combatant and non-combatant service in the armed forces.

* * * * * * *

“Love and respect for life will always remain my ultimate references, because in them is involved my essential humanity and relatedness with all other men.

* * * * * * *

“My religious belief has many sources, as it is, ultimately, rooted in all the experiences of my past life.³

* * * * * #

“I believe that force, when it results in the loss of human life, can never be morally justified.

“In all of my activities and relationships with people, I have attempted to make the concerns of love and respect for the individual my guiding principle. I feel that my involvement in the interracial discussion group in my senior year of high school and my voluntary involvement, continuing for a year, in the tutoring program for underprivileged children demonstrate my sincerity.”

The registrant submitted three supporting letters certifying to the sincerity of his belief.⁴

The Board summary of the personal appearance hearing granted to the registrant in August 1968 includes the statement that “Registrant * * * is a

Catholic and belongs to no church at the present.” The record before the Board makes it impossible to tell whether it and the appellate administrative authorities acted because registrant “belongs to no church,” he was insincere, or for some other reason. In Crownfield, swpra, this court stated:

“The purpose of our holding in Scott, as stated in that opinion, is to ensure meaningful judicial review of administrative action by requiring that the court have some idea of the basis for the decision of a local or appeal board. [Scott v. Commanding Officer, 431 F.2d 1132, 1137 (3d Cir.1970).] * * * We are unwilling to blindly endorse the rejection of any prima facie conscientious objector claim- — whenever made —on the basis of reasons known only to the Selective Service System.” United States v. Crownfield, 439 F.2d 839, p. 842 (3d Cir.).

We note that the procedural principle controlling this case was adopted by this court in Scott and Crownfield, supra, after the February 1970 district court non-jury trial in this case and that this principle was not presented to, nor considered by, the district court at the time of its April 20, 1970, Memorandum of findings and conclusions.

Because it is impossible to know the reason for the actions of the Board and appellate Selective Service authorities, the June 24, 1970, judgment and commitment will be reversed.

1 . After an induction order had been mailed to him, on March 27, 1969, Merkle filed a second Form 150 under the then revised Selective Service Regulations. The local board reviewed the file, including the Presidential appeal proceedings. It reaffirmed the I-A classification. In view of Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625, (1971) it is not necessary to consider the merits of tliis second application.

2 . See Welsh v. United States, 398 U.S. 333, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (1965). We note that the Welsh decision was filed in June 1970, after the February 1970 trial in this case.

3 . At this point, the following language appears on these sheets:

“I was raised as a Catholic and attended a Catholic high school. I took the Church teachings very seriously throughout high school. However, due to my experiences as a participant, throughout my senior year, in an interracial discussion group which attempted to establish a dialogue between Negro students in the Hill District area and white students from Catholic schools, I began to think more about the problems of social justice and love among men.

“During this time 1 read novels of Dostoyevsky. Ilis profound religious questioning influenced me deeply. I began more and more to question the doctrines of the Catholic Church concerning its teachings on the nature of God, the nature of man, and the justification of war. At this time, my beliefs were pantheistic; I believed that man is innately good, the evil in men being the result of their environment.

“I have read and taken courses on Eastern Religions. Taoism, an ancient Chinese religion which stresses oneness with nature and respect for life, has also influenced me recently.

“My talks with Father William Clancy, a Catholic priest who acts as a chaplain to Pittsburgh area colleges, have further influenced me in my choice to act on my religious convictions.”

4 . A supporting letter of May 22, 1968, from a “retired Army Officer having served in World War II” who does “not accept the philosophy of the Conscientious Objector” stated:

“1. I was impressed with his sincerity even though I disagreed.

2. He felt very strongly that his religious beliefs would be flagrantly violated by actively participating in a war.

3. To my knowledge he has felt this way for at least four years.”

A letter from the registrant’s father, received 6/13/68, states:

“About the time he entered high school (age 14) his abhorrence of violence and his respect for human life were further sustained by a great admiration for Albert Schweitzer. At this time he expressed a complete repudiation of capital punishment and he carried his respect for all forms of life to the point of not wanting to kill a fly.

$ # $ $ *

“In conclusion, while 1 am not in complete sympathy with Chris’s belief as a conscientious objector, I fee that this beliefs are definitely sincere and deep rooted.”

Father Clancy states in his letter of 0/24/68:

"I write as a Roman Catholic priest to testify that Mr. Christian Merkle has consulted me at great length on the question of his conscientious objection to all forms of modern warfare. Mr. Merkle’s convictions are deeply and sincerely held. * * * ”