United States v. Giessel, Cr. No. 283-54.
| Decision Date | 14 March 1955 |
| Docket Number | Cr. No. 283-54. |
| Citation | 129 F. Supp. 223 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Don Allen GIESSEL |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey |
Raymond Del Tufo, Jr., U. S. Atty., Albert G. Besser, Asst. U. S. Atty., Newark, N. J., for the United States.
The Grand Jury for the District of New Jersey returned an indictment against Don Allen Giessel for an alleged violation of Title 50 U.S.C.Appendix, § 462. He was charged with knowingly, wilfully and unlawfully and contrary to his legal duty, failing, neglecting and refusing to submit to induction for training in the United States Armed Forces.
The facts in this case reveal that Giessel was a registrant with Local Board No. 57 of Wisconsin. On August 14, 1950 he filed his Selective Service questionnaire (Form 100) with the board, and on August 22, 1950 he filed his Special Form for Conscientious Objectors. The board then classified the defendant IV-E (now I-O) on August 30, 1950. By doing this it recognized his claim to being a conscientious objector.
However, on November 19, 1951 the local board, acting on its own initiative, reconsidered its original classification of the registrant and ultimately reclassified him 1-A, thereby making him immediately liable for military service. Notice of this new classification was mailed to him on November 21, 1951. Thereafter, the board ordered him to report for his pre-induction physical examination on January 14, 1952. Meanwhile, by letter dated January 11, 1952, the father of the defendant inquired of the local board as to his son's classification, as well as his right to an appeal therefrom, and also requested that the son's classification be reopened and reconsidered by the local board. On January 17, 1952 the board advised defendant's father that the ten-day period within which his son might have appealed had expired and no appeal could be taken.
The entire Selective Service file was then transferred, at Giessel's request, to Local Board No. 34 of New Jersey, he having moved to New Jersey in the interim. On October 7, 1952 Giessel was ordered by this board to report for induction on October 22, 1952. He reported as ordered but refused to submit to induction. He was then indicted.
At the trial of the defendant by this court on December 8, 1954 it was stipulated that the entire draft board file be admitted into evidence. It was further agreed the file was authentic, and the defendant also admitted that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Palmer
...Ex parte Fabiani, D.C.E.D.Pa.1952, 105 F. Supp. 139; United States v. Shaw, D.C. W.D.N.Y.1953, 118 F.Supp. 849; United States v. Giessel, D.C.D.N.J.1955, 129 F. Supp. 223. 4 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009. 5 Compare Shaughnessy v. Pedreiro, 1955 349 U.S. 48, 75 S.Ct. 591. 6 50 U.S.C.A.Appendix, § 463. 7......
-
United States v. Jasmagy, 24975-Cr.
...his administrative remedies. An opinion not cited by the defendant, but of interest in this case here, is United States v. Giessel, D.C.N.J., reported at 129 F.Supp. 223. Here the defendant had received notification of his classification after the period for appeal had lapsed. The Court sta......
-
United States v. Capehart
...preaching." United States v. Manns, D.C., 135 F.Supp. 624, 628. Cf. Chernekoff v. United States, 9 Cir., 219 F.2d 721; United States v. Giessel, D.C., 129 F.Supp. 223; United States v. Rowton, D.C., 130 F.Supp. This Court is of the opinion that there was basis in fact supporting the defenda......
-
United States v. Lansing
...conduct by the local board might not be a valid defense to a criminal prosecution for refusing induction. Cf. United States v. Gissell, 129 F.Supp. 223 (D.N.J.1955). We need not delimit in this case the precise scope of a misleading government conduct defense. For it is clear that more is r......