United States v. Young, 73 Cr 180(4).
| Decision Date | 07 February 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73 Cr 180(4).,73 Cr 180(4). |
| Citation | 370 F. Supp. 356 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. Willie Earl YOUNG, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Donald J. Stohr, U. S. Atty., Thomas E. Loraine, Asst. U. S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for plaintiff.
Francis L. Ruppert, Clayton, Mo., for defendant.
The action was tried to the Court sitting without a jury on November 23, 1973 during which trial the defendant was present represented by counsel. The only evidence offered by the United States was the local draft board's file on the defendant and oral testimony authenticating the file. Following the filing of memoranda by the parties the action was taken under submission by the Court.
After carefully considering the premises of the action the Court finds and concludes, generally, that the defendant is innocent of the offense charged in the subject indictment. In support of this general finding and conclusion the following specific findings and conclusions are made:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The sole witness to testify in this action was Mrs. Geraldine M. Smith, at time of trial the Supervisory Executive Secretary for nineteen Selective Service System local boards, including local board No. 111. She brought to Court the file kept on the defendant by local board No. 111, St. Louis, Missouri. Mrs. Smith has been employed by the Selective Service System in varying supervisory capacities since August, 1961. From July 1, 1971 to July 1, 1973, when she assumed her current position, she did not have custody of the defendant's file. However, in her current position she has supervisory authority over the persons who now have custody of defendant's file.
2. Defendant's selective service file,1 offered in evidence in toto by the United States, is the complete record maintained by local board No. 111 on the defendant.
3. Defendant first registered with the Selective Service System at local board No. 111 on December 9, 1963 at which time he gave his name as Willie Earl Young. His present address was given as 5632a Maple, St. Louis, Missouri 63112.2 He named Claudine Culperson ("Culperson" is also spelled "Culberson" in the various exhibits), 5623a Maple, his mother, and Emmet Young, 2349 Division, an uncle, as persons who would always know his address. (Exh. 63).
4. On August 5, 1965 defendant executed a Current Information Questionnaire, form No. 127, whereon he gave the name of Claudine Culberson as the person who would always know his address. His current mailing address was listed as 5502 Maple. (Exh. 2). On August 27, 1965 defendant was re-classified I-A. He had been classified I-A on February 11, 1964. (Exh. 1, last page).
5. On October 14, 1965 defendant executed a Current Information Questionnaire listing his current mailing address as 5632 Maple. (Exh. 4). On November 9, 1965 defendant was re-classified III-A. (Exh. 1, last page).
6. On April 20, 1966 a Dependency Questionnaire, form No. 118, was mailed by the local board to defendant at 5632 Maple. This form was returned to the board on April 29, 1966, executed by defendant and his wife, Revonne Young. Thereon the address of both was listed as 5502 Maple. (Exh. 5).
7. On April 17, 1967 a Dependency Questionnaire was mailed to defendant at 5502 Maple. (Exh. 6A). This form was returned to the board unexecuted on April 19, 1967 bearing the notation "Addressee unknown". (Exh. 6). A letter dated April 19, 1967 (Exh. 7) was sent to Mrs. Emily Ware, 2311 Dickson, requesting where the local board might contact defendant. No answer was made to this letter. (Exh. 1, last page).
8. On June 6, 1967 defendant was re-classified I-A. (Exh. 1, last page). Notice of this classification was mailed to defendant at 5502 Maple. (Exh. 8). The notice was returned by postal authorities with the sending envelope bearing the notation "Addressee unknown". (Exh. 9).
9. On June 21, 1967 someone in the local board office telephoned Emmet Young. During this telephone call the board was advised by "Mrs. Young" that she did not know where defendant was living but stated that his mother was still at 5632a Maple. The board's caller spoke with defendant's mother who gave 4612 Washington Avenue as the residence of defendant and his wife. The board was also advised that defendant was working for the Star Service Station. (Exh. 10).
10. On July 6, 1967 an order to report for physical examination on August 1, 1967 was mailed to defendant at 4612 Washington Avenue. (Exh. 11). On August 1, 1967 defendant executed a Current Information Questionnaire in the local board No. 111 office. On this form he gave 4612 Washington as his current mailing address. (Exh. 13).
11. On March 28, 1968 the board mailed defendant a Family Status Affidavit. (Exh. 1, last page). It was returned to the board by the postal authorities on April 1, 1968 with the notation "Moved, left no address". (Exh. 14). By letter dated April 25, 1968 the board requested defendant's current address from Mrs. Claudia Culberson, 5632 Maple. (Exh. 16). This letter was returned to the board on May 6, 1968 with "5641 Waterman # 2C" noted thereon. (Exh. 17).
12. On August 12, 1968 an order to report for physical examination was mailed to defendant at 5641 Waterman 2-C. (Exh. 19). He failed to report. (Exh. 1A). There is no evidence that the induction order was returned to the board without having been delivered to the defendant.
13. Defendant was mailed an order to report for induction on November 8, 1968. (Exh. 21). He failed to report, (Exh. 1A), and the United States Attorney was so notified. (Exh. 22). Upon defendant's subsequent indication that he was willing to report for induction, prosecution was declined. (Exh. 28).
14. On February 27, 1969 defendant executed a Current Information Questionnaire in local board No. 111's office, listing 5180 Enright as his current mailing address. (Exh. 26).
15. By letter dated April 2, 1969 mailed to 5180 Enright the defendant was ordered to report for induction on April 11, 1969, (Exh. 29). He did not report. (Exh. 1A).
16. On May 14, 1969 defendant appeared in the local board office and executed a Current Information Questionnaire advising the board that his current mailing address was 5588 Wartman (sic), Apt. 203. (Exh. 33).
17. By letter dated May 16, 1969 addressed to 5588 Waterman the board sought to advise defendant that the board members agreed to re-classify him III-A at the June meeting. (Exh. 35). This letter was returned to the board on May 21, 1969 with its envelope marked "Addressee unknown". (Exh. 35A).
18. On May 29, 1969 defendant personally reported to the local board office and was advised of the May 16 letter. He orally gave his residence as 5588 Waterman, Apt. 203. (Exh. 36).
19. On March 3, 1970 defendant executed a Dependency Questionnaire giving "5588 Waterman # 203" as his address. (Exh. 38).
20. On January 4, 1971 the local board mailed defendant a Dependency Questionnaire, using the 5588 Waterman address. (Exh. 42). This questionnaire was returned to the board on January 11, 1971 with the following notation on the envelope: "Moved — left no address". (Exh. 39).
21. By letter dated January 12, 1971 the board requested of Mrs. Claudine Culperson, 5180a Enright, the address of defendant. Mrs. Culperson responded that defendant's address was 586 Holly, Apt. 3, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101. (Exh. 41). The board mailed the Dependency Questionnaire to the Minnesota address on January 18, 1971. (Exh. 1B).
22. On February 1, 1971 the January 4, 1971 Dependency Questionnaire was executed by defendant and returned by mail to the local board. (Exh. 42).
23. On February 11, 1971 defendant was reclassified I-A. (Exh. 1B). On February 25, 1971 an order to report for physical examination was mailed to defendant at the Minnesota address. (Exh. 43). He failed to report and on April 14, 1971 an order to report for induction was mailed to defendant at the Minnesota address. (Exh. 44). He again failed to report. (Exh. 1B).
24. By letter dated December 22, 1971 defendant was directed to report for induction. (Exh. 54). He failed to report on January 13, 1972. (Exh. 1B). However, defendant did present himself for induction on January 18, 1972 in Minneapolis, Minnesota, in response to the December 22, 1971 letter. However, before the day was out he left the induction facility. (Exh. 58).
During the trial of this action defendant made objections relating to (1) the subject indictment, (2) the Selective Service System regulations for violation of which defendant is being prosecuted, (3) evidence of other violations of the regulations, and (4) the admissibility of certain documents found in defendant's local board file.
The specific charge against defendant was that his "Current Information Questionnaire was returned marked `Moved — Left No Address'". The Government acknowledges the variance between the specific charge and the facts relied upon to prove it, see, Finding No. 20, supra, which involved a Dependency Questionnaire, not a Current Information Questionnaire. The Government argues that the denomination of the subject form is surplusage and that an important element in the government's proof...
To continue reading
Request your trial