Prohoroff v. United States, 15911.

• Decision Date: 21 November 1958
• Docket Number: No. 15911.,15911.
• Citation: 259 F.2d 694
• Parties: Bill William PROHOROFF, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

259 F.2d 694 (1958)

Bill William PROHOROFF, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 15911.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

October 9, 1958.

Rehearing Denied November 21, 1958.

J.B. Tietz, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Lloyd F. Dunn, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.

Before FEE and HAMLIN, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District Judge.

BOWEN, District Judge.

This is an appeal by appellant Prohoroff, a Selective Training and Service Act (50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 451 et seq.) registrant, from the judgment and 6-months jail sentence imposed against him by the District Court sitting without a jury in a trial for appellant's willful failure to report for induction into the Armed Forces as required by Local Draft Board 71, Fresno County, California, pursuant to grand jury indictment under § 462 of that Act.

As justification for such failure to so report, appellant claims to be a conscientious objector.

Appellant objects to Draft Board 71's jurisdiction over him which he contends was not established because certain exhibits relied upon by appellee to prove appellant's address was within the exterior boundaries of that Board were not sufficiently authenticated for admission in evidence. But we find the record amply justifies the District Court's findings and ruling that "We do have the fact that * * * Mrs. Ford has been employed as coordinator of the four Boards since 1948 the year they were organized, and these documents without question are documents within the office of the Board. They have been certainly acted upon as being genuine documents and an examination of the documents reveals that at the time this defendant appellant registered he was within the jurisdiction of Local Board 71." Those properly made findings sufficiently validate the District Court's admission in evidence of the questioned exhibits, called by the Court "documents". McCormick, Evid. (1954), § 191, p. 403; United States v. Ward, 2 Cir., 1949, 173 F.2d 628; Morgan v. U.S., 5 Cir., 1945, 149 F.2d 185. For statement of general rule, see Olender v. U.S., 9 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 795, at page 801, syl. (7).

That validation and those findings and much of their supporting evidence are applicable specifically to the questioned document exhibit which came to the Board office from State Headquarters purporting to be the official record of the area description of Board 71 with "Local Board No. 71" typed at the top of that exhibit which contained also the typewritten legal description of the Board 71 area. And such validation, findings and supporting evidence are likewise specifically applicable to the questioned map exhibits which are maps of the same area as that shown in that legal description in the document exhibit and were made up by officials in the course of their service under the Act for use and were used by those working in the Board office.

Even if those questioned exhibits were not sufficiently authenticated for admission in evidence, although we hold they all were, appellant would nevertheless be deemed barred from now objecting to the geographical jurisdiction of Board 71 over him because of his failure as to that objection to exhaust his administrative appeal remedies, hereinafter more fully dealt with upon another question. Evans v. U.S., 9 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 509; McLenigan v. Grymes, D.C. M.D.Pa.1945, 59 F.Supp. 846. See also Mason v. U.S., 9 Cir., 1955, 218 F.2d 375.

We overrule appellant's objection to the District Court's admission in evidence of...