United States v. David Thomas Kircher

Ninth Circuit

United States v. David Thomas Kircher

443 F.2d 46, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10181

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 14, 1971

Docket71-1302_1

StatusPublished

This text of 443 F.2d 46 (United States v. David Thomas Kircher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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. David Thomas Kircher, 443 F.2d 46, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10181 (9th Cir. 1971).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Kircher, convicted of refusing to submit to induction [50 App. U.S.C. § 462] contends on this appeal that the judgment of conviction should be reversed because he was denied due process.

The fact is that, although Kircher had been furnished the form to claim a classification as a conscientious objector, and was advised that the local board would answer questions relative to it and that an appeal agent would give him advice on selective service matters, Kircher did not request classification as a conscientious objector or seek any assistance from the board in making such a request. His first claim of a conscientious objection was made in the district court. Under these circumstances, he cannot now claim a lack of due process in the administrative proceeding.

The judgment is affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM:

Kircher, convicted of refusing to submit to induction [50 App. U.S.C. § 462] contends on this appeal that the judgment of conviction should be reversed because he was denied due process.

The fact is that, although Kircher had been furnished the form to claim a classification as a conscientious objector, and was advised that the local board would answer questions relative to it and that an appeal agent would give him advice on selective service matters, Kircher did not request classification as a conscientious objector or seek any assistance from the board in making such a request. His first claim of a conscientious objection was made in the district court. Under these circumstances, he cannot now claim a lack of due process in the administrative proceeding.

The judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

443 F.2d 46, 1971 U.S. App. LEXIS 10181, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-david-thomas-kircher-ca9-1971.