United States v. DeRemer
| Decision Date | 30 September 1963 |
| Docket Number | No. 4-62-Cr-109.,4-62-Cr-109. |
| Citation | 221 F. Supp. 553 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Dale Verne DeREMER, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
John J. Connelly, Asst. U. S. Atty., Miles W. Lord, U. S. Atty., Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
Clay R. Moore, Mackall, Crounse, Moore, Helmey & Holmes, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant.
This is a prosecution for refusal to submit to induction into the armed services of the United States in violation of 50 U.S.C.App. § 462. The defendant having waived his right to be tried by a jury, the Court heard evidence in this matter on July 11, 1963.
A review of the defendant's status from his initial registration until his refusal to be inducted on December 13, 1961 is in order. In August, 1954, defendant claimed exemption from both combatant and non-combatant service in the armed forces. He claimed to be a conscientious objector — a minister of Jehovah's Witnesses. He received a I-A classification from his local board in that year. An appeal to the Board of Appeal of this State followed, and the Appeal Board referred the case to the office of the United States Attorney for inquiry, hearing, and recommendation. In accordance with standard procedure, a Hearing Officer was appointed by the Department of Justice to interview the defendant and to make a recommendation to the Department of Justice. A personal interview was had with defendant on May 22, 1956, after which the Hearing Officer recommended to the Department of Justice that the appeal not be sustained. The Department of Justice made a similar recommendation to the Appeal Board which denied the appeal and defendant was classified I-A. A copy of the Justice Department's recommendation containing a summary of the Hearing Officer's report and a résumé of the FBI inquiry was made available to defendant prior to the Appeal Board's final action. Defendant was not immediately inducted into the armed forces.
In 1958 he received a IV-F classification because of physical unacceptability. He was given another medical examination in 1959, and in April of that year was found to be physically acceptable and was classified I-A by his local board, but his classification remained I-A. Defendant's employment with Northern Ordinance, Inc., resulted in a temporary II-A classification in August, 1959. That company was engaged in defense contract work with the Navy and defendant was deemed a necessary part of that operation. In July, 1960, he received a I-A classification. Defendant appeared personally before the local board on August 16, 1960. Having failed to secure a change in his I-A classification, he appealed to the Appeal Board.
The Appeal Board, on September 29, 1960, made a tentative finding that defendant was not entitled to a classification lower than I-O. See 32 C.F.R. § 1626.25 for the procedure which is followed when an appeal of a conscientious objector is taken. The matter was then turned over to the United States Attorney for inquiry, hearing and recommendation. The Hearing Officer's report recommending that defendant be classified as a conscientious objector, opposed to both combatant and noncombatant service, was sent to the Department of Justice on April 13, 1961. On May 2, 1961, the Department recommended to the Appeal Board that defendant be classified I-A-O, opposed only to combatant service. A copy of the Department's recommendation was sent to defendant on May 18, 1961. The Department's letter of recommendation contained a summary of the Hearing Officer's report and a résumé of the supplemental inquiry made by the FBI. Accompanying the copy sent to the defendant was a notice allowing him 30 days in which to answer the Department's recommendation to the Appeal Board. Defendant replied to the Appeal Board by letter dated June 12, 1961.
On June 24, 1961, the Appeal Board classified defendant I-A-O — thus following the Department's recommendation and rejecting the Hearing Officer's recommendation. Defendant was ordered to report for induction on December 13, 1961, at which time he refused to step forward to be inducted when so ordered by the attending officers. An information was filed against defendant who entered a plea of not guilty on November 13, 1962. This trial followed.
The principal contention of defendant is that the procedures employed for determining his draft classification deprived him of a "fair hearing." More specifically, defendant argues that a fair hearing means a hearing in which all evidence, favorable and adverse, is made available to the defendant and the Appeal Board. He objects to procedures whereby the Hearing Officer's report and recommendation is only seen by the Department of Justice — not by the defendant or the Appeal Board.
The procedure followed generally and in this case is as follows: The Hearing Officers notified the defendant that a hearing would be had on a particular date. Accompanying this notice was a résumé of the FBI inquiry. The defendant was also informed that he could be accompanied by counsel, could present evidence, and could produce witnesses. The hearing was had, and the results thereof were sent to the Department of Justice in the form of a report and recommendation. Neither defendant nor the Appeal Board were furnished copies of the Hearing Officer's Report. Each learned of the report and its recommendation upon receipt of the Department report and recommendation containing a summary of the Hearing Officer's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
DeRemer v. United States
...He makes the same contentions here. The memorandum opinion of the District Court adjudicating appellant's guilt may be found at 221 F.Supp. 553. Appellant has had a long history with the Selective Service System of the United States. His original registration was on July 26, 1954, before Lo......