United States v. Dangler

422 F.2d 344
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 1, 1970
DocketNo. 28316
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 422 F.2d 344 (United States v. Dangler) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Dangler, 422 F.2d 344 (5th Cir. 1970).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Dangler, a Jehovah’s Witness, classified as a conscientious objector, was indicted, tried and convicted of failing to report to a state hospital for employment in accordance with the lawful instructions from his local board in violation of 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462. We affirm.1

We find utterly without merit Dangler’s contention that the trial judge abused his discretion when, at the request of a prospective juror who was a [345]*345Jehovah’s Witness, he excused the juror for the term.

Dangler also urges that it was error to overrule his challenge to the array of jurors. He argues that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not vote and therefore are not included in jury panels. But their exclusion as jurors is not borne out by the record. It is plain, however, that if they do not serve as jurors, it is not because they are deliberately excluded but because they are excused at their own request. We have approved the use of voter registration lists as the sole source of names for jury duty unless it results in the systematic exclusion of “a cognizable group or class of qualified citizens.” Camp v. United States, 5 Cir. 1969, 413 F.2d 419. And we have held that those who do not choose to register cannot be considered a cognizable group. Grimes v. United States, 5 Cir. 1968, 391 F.2d 709, cert. denied, 393 U.S. 825, 89 S.Ct. 87, 21 L.Ed.2d 96.

Dangler’s final contention that the evidence failed to show that he had a duty to report for employment at Delaware State Hospital is frivolous.

Affirmed.

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

Related

Joe Martinez Natal v. State
Court of Appeals of Texas, 1991
Mead v. State
759 S.W.2d 437 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 1988)
United States v. Maskeny
609 F.2d 183 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
United States v. Stanley Ward
610 F.2d 294 (Fifth Circuit, 1980)
United States v. Gaona
445 F. Supp. 1237 (W.D. Texas, 1978)
Granviel v. State
552 S.W.2d 107 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1976)
United States v. James
528 F.2d 999 (Fifth Circuit, 1976)
Ford v. Hollowell
385 F. Supp. 1392 (N.D. Mississippi, 1974)
Craig v. Wyse
373 F. Supp. 1008 (D. Colorado, 1974)
United States v. Briggs
366 F. Supp. 1356 (N.D. Florida, 1973)
People v. Sirhan
497 P.2d 1121 (California Supreme Court, 1972)
United States v. Patrick Carl Gast
457 F.2d 141 (Seventh Circuit, 1972)
Willis v. Carson
324 F. Supp. 1144 (S.D. Mississippi, 1971)
State v. Parker
462 S.W.2d 737 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1971)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
422 F.2d 344, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-dangler-ca5-1970.