Mitchell, Iii v. United States
| Decision Date | 20 March 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 1012,1012 |
| Citation | 18 L.Ed.2d 132,386 U.S. 972,87 S.Ct. 1162 |
| Parties | David Henry MITCHELL, III, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
See 386 U.S. 1042, 87 S.Ct. 1477.
Robert L. Bobrick, for petitioner.
Solicitor General Marshall, Assistant Attorney General Vinson and Beatrice Rosenberg, for the United States.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.
Denied.
Petitioner did not report for induction as ordered, was indicted, convicted, and sentenced to five years imprisonment and his conviction was affirmed. 369 F.2d 323. His defense was that the 'war' in Vietnam was being conducted in violation of various treaties to which we were a signatory especially the Treaty of London of August 8, 1945, 59 Stat. 1544, which in Article 6(a) declares that 'waging of a war of aggression' is a 'crime against peace' imposing 'individual responsibility.' Article 8 provides:
'The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.'
Petitioner claimed that the 'war' in Vietnam was a 'war of aggression' within the meaning of the Treaty of London and that Article 8 makes him responsible for participating in it even though he is ordered to do so.*
Mr. Justice Jackson, the United States prosecutor at Nuremberg, stated: 'If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or whether Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.' (International Conference on Military Trials, Dept. State Pub. No. 3880, p. 330.)
Article VI, cl. 2 of the Constitution states that 'treaties' are a part of 'the supreme law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby.'
There is a considerable body of opinion that our actions in Vietnam constitute the waging of an aggressive 'war.'
This case presents the questions:
(1) whether the Treaty of London is a treaty within the meaning of Art. VI, cl. 2;
(2) whether the question as to the waging of an aggressive 'war' is in the context of this criminal prosecution a justiciable question;
(3) whether the Vietnam episode is a 'war' in the sense of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Chatman v. Hall
... ... Although Exum has submitted affidavits attesting to his having made those calls, the City states that it has no records of them. According to defendant employees, they and the City had no actual ... Cf. Mitchell v. City of Trenton, 163 N.J.Super. 287, 290, 394 A.2d 886 (App.Div.1978) (no resources allocated by ... ...
-
Timber Properties, Inc. v. Chester Tp.
... ... In any event, there is no decision which states that vested rights can be acquired without either official municipal action or the judgment of a ... at 404, n. 26, 99 S.Ct. at 1178, n. 26, every United States Circuit Court of Appeals which has addressed this issue since Lake Country Estates has ... ...
-
United States v. Valentine
...192 F.2d 805, 806 (C.A. 2, 1951); see also United States v. Mitchell, 369 F.2d 323, 324 (C.A.2, 1966), certiorari denied, 386 U.S. 972, 87 S.Ct. 1162, 18 L.Ed.2d 132. More importantly, a judicial inquiry into the conduct of foreign policy or the use and disposition of military forces by the......
-
Mottola v. Nixon
...996, 90 S.Ct. 1137, 25 L.Ed.2d 405 (1970); United States v. Mitchell, 369 F.2d 323, 324 (2d Cir. 1966), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 972, 87 S.Ct. 1162, 18 L. Ed.2d 132 (1967). We therefore think that the district court's reliance upon Flast v. Cohen, supra, was the essence of its The trial court......