United States v. Joyce

• Citation: 327 F. Supp. 945
• Decision Date: 21 June 1971
• Docket Number: No. CR69-5S.,CR69-5S.
• Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Donald Sumner JOYCE, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota

327 F. Supp. 945

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Donald Sumner JOYCE, Defendant.

No. CR69-5S.

United States District Court, D. South Dakota, S. D.

June 21, 1971.

R. D. Hurd, Asst. U. S. Atty., Sioux Falls, S. D., for plaintiff.

John G. S. Flym, Cambridge, Mass., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

NICHOL, Chief Judge.

Following a trial by jury Joyce was found guilty of failing to report for and submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States in violation of 50 App.U.S.C. 462. Ruling was reserved by this court on several motions for judgment of acquittal, a new trial, and dismissal of the indictment. These motions are now before this court for decision. In view of this court's findings only one of the grounds for judgment of acquittal will be considered.

On October 5, 1967, registrant's local board at Keene, New Hampshire, received a request for a II-A deferment for registrant from Francis Coelho, Chairman, Art Department, University of South Dakota. The request was made so that "he (Joyce) can assume the responsibility of artist-teacher at the University of South Dakota as described by the enclosed contract copy". The record reflects that although the appointment was for the 1967-1968 academic year, registrant was not to begin his duties as an assistant professor until after his scheduled completion of work toward a Master of Fine Arts degree on December 20, 1967. Prior to October 5, 1967, no request for a II-A deferment had been made by or on behalf of the registrant. Before Coelho's request, Joyce had been reclassified from I-S(c) to I-A on August 8, 1967. An appeal from the I-A classification, requesting a II-S classification, was pending on October 5, 1967. The I-A classification was upheld by the State Appeal Board on October 18, 1967.

On October 31, 1967, an induction order was issued to registrant upon the recommendation of the State Headquarters. On the same day a postponement of induction until the first call after January 1, 1968, was also sent in order that registrant could receive his degree December 20, 1967. On November 3, 1967, Coelho's secretary called registrant's local board and requested information about the October 3, 1967, II-A request after the next board meeting. Coelho's secretary was informed that the next board meeting would be held on November 14, 1967. The same day a letter was sent from the local board to Coelho acknowledging receipt of his deferment request and informing him that "this will be referred to the members of local board No. 3 and you will be notified". The minutes of the November 14, 1967, meeting of the local board contain the following notation relative to registrant: "Donald Sumner Joyce: XX-X-XX-XX —Registrant classified to I-A(p) to complete school—Order for Induction Postponed until first Order for Induction after January 1, 1968 by Board".

On November 22, 1967, registrant wrote a letter to the local board requesting consideration of Coelho's II-A request. On November 29, 1967, Coelho reiterated his II-A deferment request, stating in part that: "It will work a real hardship on our students and disrupt our carefully planned educational program for this year if Professor Joyce is unable to fulfill his part in the program which in part is built upon the unique contribution only he can make." On December 6, 1967, the local board wrote to Joyce with a copy to Coelho stating that: "The local board reviewed the information in your file and felt that in view of the fact that you had asked for deferment to get your Master's degree, no further action would be taken." Coelho again reiterated his deferment request on January 15, 1968. On January 18, 1968, Coelho received a reply letter from the board which stated in part that: "The reason he (Joyce) was postponed was to allow him to receive his degree before he entered the Army. Therefore, no further action can be considered."

The scope of review in selective service cases is a narrow one. A classification can be found invalid only if no basis in fact for the classification exists or the registrant was denied fundamental procedural fairness. Vaughn v. United States, 404 F.2d 586, 589-590 (8th Cir. 1968). A violation of the Selective Service Regulations provides a basis for overturning a classification only if a substantial prejudice has resulted to the registrant. United States v. Chaudron, 425 F.2d 605, 608 (8th Cir. 1970).

Section 1625.2 of the Selective Service...