United States v. Camara, No. 71-1222.

CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
Writing for the CourtALDRICH, , and BREITENSTEIN, Senior Circuit , and COFFIN, Circuit
Citation451 F.2d 1122
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Steven Antone CAMARA, Defendant, Appellant.
Docket NumberNo. 71-1222.
Decision Date02 December 1971

451 F.2d 1122 (1971)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Steven Antone CAMARA, Defendant, Appellant.

No. 71-1222.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

Heard November 3, 1971.

Decided December 2, 1971.


451 F.2d 1123

Edward F. Haber, Boston, Mass., by appointment of the Court, for appellant.

William A. Brown, Asst. U. S. Atty., with whom Herbert F. Travers, Jr., U. S. Atty., was on brief, for appellee.

Before ALDRICH, Chief Judge, and BREITENSTEIN, Senior Circuit Judge,* and COFFIN, Circuit Judge.

COFFIN, Circuit Judge.

Appellant was convicted in a jury-waived trial of refusing to comply with his draft board's order to report for induction, in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. His major contention is that his refusal to be inducted was not wilful, since he alleges that he reasonably believed, under the law of this circuit prior to Ehlert v. United States, 402 U. S. 99, 91 S.Ct. 1319, 28 L.Ed.2d 625 (1971), that his local board acted illegally in refusing to reopen his classification to consider his post-induction order claim for conscientious objector status.

On June 25, 1970, appellant was ordered to report for induction on July 7; on July 1, he requested a conscientious objector form (SSS Form 150) and, his induction order being postponed, completed and returned it on July 22. He was given a hearing on July 29. The local board, finding that "there has been no change in appellant's status as a result of circumstances over which he had no control", declined to reopen his 1-A classification and ordered him to report for induction on August 6. Appellant duly reported but refused induction.

Appellant argues that the board's refusal to reopen his classification was expressed in an ambiguous statement, which could be construed either as a finding that his status had not changed or that, if it had changed, the circumstances had not been beyond his control. In the latter circumstance, appellant contends, the local board, in deeming itself without power to reopen, would have acted contrary to the law of our circuit at the time. We had earlier observed in United States v. Stoppelman, 1 Cir., 406 F.2d 127, 131 n. 7, cert. denied, 395 U.S. 981, 89 S.Ct. 2141, 23 L. Ed.2d 769 (1969), that "we envisage the possibility of a registrant's carrying this burden of proving sincerity, timing, and lack of control over a belated change of belief and are persuaded by the reasoning of the Second Circuit in United States v. Gearey, 368 F.2d 144 (1966). * * *"

The then existing conflict among the circuits on the issue whether a post-induction claim of C.O. status could be "circumstances over which the registrant had no control" was, of course, settled by Ehlert v. United States, supra, which held that such late-blooming claims could not be considered by draft boards. Appellant contends, however, that the decision in Ehlert, handed down on April 21, 1971, cannot retroactively

451 F.2d 1124
render illegal his prior refusal to submit to induction. He says, more specifically, that he did not "knowingly" fail to report for induction, in violation of 50 U. S.C. App. § 462(a), since, to quote his brief, he "was reasonable in believing that the board's refusal to reopen his classification, and hence its subsequent cancellation of his induction order postponement and the renewal of the July 7 order to report for induction was contrary to law and hence the law did not require that the order be obeyed."

Appellant relies on United States v. Murdock, 290 U.S. 389, 54 S.Ct. 223, 78 L.Ed. 381 (1933), to which we devoted considerable attention in United States v. Boardman, 419 F.2d 110, 114-115 (1969), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 991, 90 S. Ct. 1124, 25 L.Ed.2d 398 (1970). Without conceding that a refusal to submit to induction can be equated with a misunderstanding of complex revenue regulations, we think that appellant's Murdock argument misfires. The issue in Murdock was whether a charge should have been given to the jury that it could consider whether the respondent-taxpayer in that case was so unreasonable in invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege against incriminating himself in a possible state prosecution as the basis for his refusal to supply tax information as to exhibit bad faith and establish wilful wrong-doing. The Court held that, since Murdock had testified to a "bona fide misunderstanding" regarding his legal obligations, he had a right to have the question of absence of evil motive submitted to the jury. 290 U.S. at 396, 54 S.Ct. 223. Appellant here, however, offered no testimony in the district court showing that as of...

To continue reading

Request your trial
23 practice notes
  • Barber v. Ponte, No. 84-1750
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 18, 1985
    ...differ significantly from a similarly narrow span which is older or younger than the scrutinized group. See United States v. Camara, 451 F.2d 1122, 1126 (1st Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1074, 92 S.Ct. 1513, 31 L.Ed.2d 808 (1972) (persons 21-25); King v. United States, 346 F.2d 123, 12......
  • Hamling v. United States 8212 507, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1974
    ...material.' Brief for Petitioner Hamling 88. 21. See, e.g., United States v. Butera, 420 F.2d 564 (CA1 1970); United States v. Camara, 451 F.2d 1122 (CA1 1971); United States v. Gooding, 473 F.2d 425 (CA5 1973); United States v. Kuhn, 441 F.2d 179 (CA5 1971); United States v. Gast, 457 F.2d ......
  • Com. v. Bastarache
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 12, 1980
    ...denied, 410 U.S. 989, 93 S.Ct. 1500, 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (1973) (twenty-one to twenty-four age group not cognizable); United States v. Camara, 451 F.2d 1122, 1126 (1st Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1074, 92 S.Ct. 1513, 31 L.Ed.2d 808 (1972) (persons under twenty-five, grand jury); United St......
  • U.S. v. Diggs, Nos. 73-1667
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 3, 1975
    ...United States, 468 F.2d 141, 144-146 (CA 7 1972); United States v. Kuhn, 441 F.2d 179, 180-181 (CA 5 1971); Cf. United States v. Camara, 451 F.2d 1122, 1125-1126 (CA 1 1971), Cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1074, 92 S.Ct. 1513, 31 L.Ed.2d 808 (1972). But see United States v. Butera, 420 F.2d 564, 57......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
23 cases
  • Barber v. Ponte, No. 84-1750
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (1st Circuit)
    • September 18, 1985
    ...differ significantly from a similarly narrow span which is older or younger than the scrutinized group. See United States v. Camara, 451 F.2d 1122, 1126 (1st Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1074, 92 S.Ct. 1513, 31 L.Ed.2d 808 (1972) (persons 21-25); King v. United States, 346 F.2d 123, 12......
  • Hamling v. United States 8212 507, No. 73
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • June 24, 1974
    ...material.' Brief for Petitioner Hamling 88. 21. See, e.g., United States v. Butera, 420 F.2d 564 (CA1 1970); United States v. Camara, 451 F.2d 1122 (CA1 1971); United States v. Gooding, 473 F.2d 425 (CA5 1973); United States v. Kuhn, 441 F.2d 179 (CA5 1971); United States v. Gast, 457 F.2d ......
  • Com. v. Bastarache
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts
    • December 12, 1980
    ...denied, 410 U.S. 989, 93 S.Ct. 1500, 36 L.Ed.2d 188 (1973) (twenty-one to twenty-four age group not cognizable); United States v. Camara, 451 F.2d 1122, 1126 (1st Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1074, 92 S.Ct. 1513, 31 L.Ed.2d 808 (1972) (persons under twenty-five, grand jury); United St......
  • U.S. v. Diggs, Nos. 73-1667
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
    • November 3, 1975
    ...United States, 468 F.2d 141, 144-146 (CA 7 1972); United States v. Kuhn, 441 F.2d 179, 180-181 (CA 5 1971); Cf. United States v. Camara, 451 F.2d 1122, 1125-1126 (CA 1 1971), Cert. denied, 405 U.S. 1074, 92 S.Ct. 1513, 31 L.Ed.2d 808 (1972). But see United States v. Butera, 420 F.2d 564, 57......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT