*1 STATES. v. UNITED ANNETT
No. 4632. Appeals Court
United States
Tenth Circuit. 26, 1953.
June
Rehearing July 21, 1953. Denied
Hаyden Covington, Y., Brookyln, C. N. appellant. Judge, Bratton, Circuit dissented.
Harry Foreman, Norman, (Rob- G. Old. Shelton, Atty., City, ert E. U. S. Oklahoma Okl., appellee. brief), on the PHILLIPS, Judge, Before Chief HUXMAN, BRATTON Circuit Judges.
HUXMAN, Judge. Circuit Appellant, Tony Annett, Gene charged knowingly failing refus- ing to submit to induction into the United Army with States intent to evade service therein, U.S.C.A.Appen- in violation of 50 dix, seq. appealed 451 et He has § judgment finding guilty him and sentence imposed thereon. scope of review of a court fixing
of law of the actions of a local board determining a classification is a limited may weigh We one. evidence. The decisions of the local board made in con formity regulations are final and , us, binding though they may bе erroneous. We interfere jurisdiction local board lacks to make order, jurisdiction and it lacks if is void there is no order substantial evi support Estep it. States, dence v. United 423, 427, 327 U.S. S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. is a landmark case this field of law. states, The court therein “We cannot read- *2 690 advisory opinion receiving After the departed far so Congress ily infer that Aрpeal Department, from the the concepts of a fair trial from the traditional Justice upheld the board’s classifica- Board local boards local the
when it made the of actions re- 1-A Annett was ordered to this tion of of provide that a citizen as ‘final’ to appear. induction, port for but failed to obeying gо jail to should he would he was Thereafter notified order of an administrative an unlawful personal be- given appearance another Congres- be that the agency.” It appeared and fore the board. This time he expression decision that the sional the presented to further oral information it chose final boаrd was meant reopened and he then board. His file was give administrative action to again notified re- was classified 1-A. customary scope judicial When this act the ap- classification, he filed a notice statutes. view which obtains under other peal. Appeal again The Board concluded “It the rule as follows: court states classification the that he was not entitled to the weigh means the courts are not by the again him and forwarded classifi- claimed evidence to determine whether the Department for an justi- file the by cation made the local boards Justice advisory opinion. given a second He was local boards fied. The decisions of the Belisle, hearing Hearing before Officer conformity regulations the made in claimed again recommended that his be erro- who are final even he be clas- question classification be denied and that The court states that neous.” file and record sified 1-A. The entire jurisdiction the local board to issue Departmеnt by the was then reviewed induction order classification and Justice Annett had again which concluded that in fact if there is no basis “reached alleged conscientious failed establish gave classification which objections upon deep-seated were based by the registrant.” rule was followed This religious training arising convictions out of District of District Court Western belief recommended that he be v. Kentucky (Louisville) United States objector. He classified as a conscientious Graham, the court F.Supp. classified, again refused to be in- so con- of 1-A of a held void a ducted, prosecuted and was then because objector minister scientious and a rеsults indicated above. support. it was without factual produced Annett an abundance of evi- examine the light that we dence, membership in evidencing his recite record and briefs record. The religious organization Witness Jehovah by au- steps great detail sincerity and his in his belief that into seeking Annett induct thorities wrong participatе in it was war military These include service. He established uncontrovert- manner. classification, hearing 1-A a original youth that he was ed evidence reared as and an the board rehearing before faith and had been That Appeal 'Board of Oklahoma. to the good standing in member in Jeho- not be Annett found that should years. for a numbеr vah’s Witnesses as a either granted classification hearing found be- objector forward- as conscientious came a member of Department for an ed his file to Justice publicly in that he in 1942 and testified to Annett’s advisory recommendation as attended and school theocratic objector’s Annett was claim. consciеntious meetings of his sect. Annett tes- other at appear Hearing before Offi- notice given baptized he was and consecrated tified that Belisle. Belisle recommended cer, R. A. He also offered evidence in 1941. of the classification allowing tending and evidence character moral by Annett. His recommendations claim minister status as that exists in support his Department reviewed Justice organization. Appeal Board was notified State case, aside from Department The Government’s concurred in that the Justice actions of the official exhibits conclusions of officer. boards, manner the two which the rests answered various questions prоpounded Hearing Officer to him. There is an recommendations December abundant amount of In his evidence furnished in Belisle. *3 behalf, made to his principally by he out a number statements members of his set However, wit- own persons large portion interviewed. The faith. by him he merely activities, that it is stated devoted to his nesses adverse Annett ministerial your and which they hearing him to be sincere officer is did not believe not endeavor- pass upon to a con- him entitled other than in did not consider connection They re- with the objector registrant all claim scientious status. as a conscienti- opinion objector. he ous hearing fact in their to the that Your officer is un- fеrred But all able to poor family background. reconcile the belief registrant had a opinion may, that he they Scriptures, their or conclusion. stated was defend facts, They no evidence himself even gave basic to the killing, extent of but predi- able, faith, not which such belief was under his whatever on to serve his coun- try policе long military service; in especially, chief of cated. Thus the County, he of Woods was unable authority time former sheriff to state his Oklahoma, from that Annett came defense of himself stated in the same Bible which did not he poor family background and he uses to sustain objections. his Your him to a conscientious consider entitled is not satisfied with thе sin- ap- cerity Assuming registrant that objector’s rating. for the further correct, it reason praisal background his was that evidence furnished An- inadequate material or indicative was is in nowise and did not objector. have quality as a conscientious that necessary nett’s status to sustain his position.” he not consider To state that does giving single fact him sincere without It is thus applied clear that Belisle an predicated belief is does which such erroneous in standard determining that An- dignity of to the evidence. not rise nett was not entitled to a conscientious ob- belief and conclusion of states the mere jector status. The standard laid down in he is entitled to the the witness. Whether religious statute training and belief sought status he was for the determination opposed participation in war positive be made from evi- of the board to form statute, and as stated in the “Religi- before it. All the remain- dence adduced training ous and belief in this connection ing adverse witnesses set out Belisle’s means an individual’s belief in a relation to report merely did not be- stated Supreme Being involving duties superior sought entitled to what he lieve he was arising to those human relation single statement of a on without fact * * positive Annett’s uncontradicted they based their To illus- belief. testimony established that his religious be- trate, he was not undersheriff stated that liefs met this test. The mere fact that he acquainted sufficiently with Annett to com- willing was fight in defense of his own sincerity of this conscientious ment on his life not does mean that he did not have claim; yet he objector stated that he did good religious scruples faith based he was entitled to it. not believe teachings of his against church command of his go to war and investigation, During the Annett kill therein. believed in self defense if he asked was report frankly that he did and that he his second February he filed necessary pre 'Belisle if defend and likewise kill concluded would that Annett Belisle believed was not entitled to the life. status claimed serve with the claim him. These conclusions were inconsistent based in particiрation against general beliefs on the same line of scruples and information stated, report. reported fact, In his “Your his first war. impressed part upon large hearing officer same 456(j). U.S.C.A.Appendix, §
1. 50 €92 ground religious scruples and be-
statements of the same witnesses as liefs report. the character war. To first Illustrative of be sincere excerpts. teachings following religion does of the evidence are require had not fawn grovel local board who that one A new member of the must up give was or be action and timid. yet official One stand manly ácquainted straight-forward ques- personally answers propounded no tions he felt he was to him fear of without nonetheless' stated faith im- having religiоn a deferred more entitled to compels The pugned. reading faiths. men of A the record than other No. Local Board the conclusions that board was of acting chairman of *4 Oklahoma, he right that to County, stated view that Annett’s belief in his Woods the fight preserve entitled to inconsistent Annett was his life was did not believe he did against beсause any religious with belief a minister sincere classification of ministry but any phase the participation time to in of war. This devote his full not and farming painting position and Govern- employed taken was at also the meetings Witness in this filed attended ment’s counsel brief Jehovah side, out, all the statements run and so pointed on the errone- court. As this an his Government upon by the relied in the stand- not line with ous conclusion report rejection recommending furnishes second a and ard down in statute laid status, Belisle that the claimed of action the board. no of basis in background good of Annett was single of a The record is devoid questionable parents char- that his were of act, any by Annett or of conduct word or reputation formerly had be- acter and and single testimony witness joined longed to the Catholic Church but that Annett would tend to show fact which part of in the latter Witnesses Jehovah’s in faith of the good was a member departure quite a 1930’s; this was that religious organization way Jehovah religions could in no that the and two religious partici convictions materiality this had be reconciled. What pation A analysis in war. careful in became member whether Annett compels majority record to conclude Witness Church good faith of the Jehovah complete that there is lack of objection sub conscientious religious and had a support stantial evidence to comprehen- conclusions war is difficult going t.o findings and of the board and its order was Belisle was sion. did that Annett therefore The void. order of the wholly board almost in the faith of raised Je- being void, Annett was guilty of no endeavoring hovah’s and was offense family and in reputation refusing of his to submit to rise above induction. Other respects qualities. presented some fine issues in some had are appeal reported He also that furnished because conclusion we have reached his testimony evidence of abundant and o:i the main issue need not be considered. impressed by sincerity. Belisle was Since the record is devоid evi- fact, influenced his conclu- no doubt dence sustaining the finding of the board did sions, by impression that Annett his that Annett was anot member faith humility ordinarily not have “that incident Witnesses, possessed of an deep, sincere, having to one honest partici- conviction against objection military in our to service forces.” pation war, the judgment cannot stand is, stated, therefore, he “It Based therefore, is, necessary sepa- it your opinion considered rately inquire whether there is evidence the evidence is insufficient to support sufficient to the finding was position sustain regis- not a Witness faith. trant.” humility, statute does not make judgment The The of the trial court is Re- means, an whatever element of one’s versed and the cause is remanded with exemption' military right service directions to dismiss. apart from the (dissenting). recom- BRATTON, Judge Circuit mendations, adequate there basis in was boards draft to local Congress committed reject- fact for action of board power to appeal boards—not courts— оf exemption. Appellant the claims registrants classification determine twenty years age was at the time of his A court Act. Service the Selective registration. was single He and had de- pros and weighing warranted is not pendents. approximately years For five whether determine the evidence to cons of principаl occupa- prior registering, his by a local particular made driving a working tion tractor and justified. or board an averaged fifty per a farm. He about hours made con- either board decision of wage pay approxi- week regulations is Act formity mately per day. dollars eight lie also erroneous. be final plant рacking worked in a but some meat capriciously. arbitrarily or act board cannot Appellant, is not certain. exact time discretion informed must exercise father, mother, his three power must be upon the facts. Its brothers members Catholic consistently with the exactions exerted family church. the entire left *5 acts in ac- process. But if the board due that church and became members of regulations, Je- Act cordance 1942, July, shortly hovah’s Witnesses. and process, there consistently with due and after the States entered World War United classification, the ac- fact is basis prospect calling II young and should and is conclusive tile board tion of men of the into service became court or be disturbed imminent, appellant became minister conclusion a different might reach jury Witnesses sect. Later he was words, Jehovah’s facts. In other based regularly engaged paint- business of of a board review the action will not court drew wages and substantial therefor. mere registrant for error. classifying a His as a services pri- minister consisted part of discretion on And abuse of marily going from door to door on Sun- must be classifying
board day distributing and literature. He usually declare it a court will clearly before shown devoted from three to five hours to such of fact basis If rational there void. activity Sunday, he apparently and did сlassification, action sustained, nothing more that field. He did not Estep v. United will be board receive financial 423, 90 L.Ed. remuneration for States, such 66 327 U.S. S.Ct. 567; Cox v. United primarily services. His work 68 States, 332 U.S. that of a laborer and he received his livelihood L.Ed. 59. S.Ct. from that source. He stated that he would majority hold the placing himself, defend home, would defend his 1-A aрpellant class was without and would defend his brothers of the holding factual basis. effect organization. Witnesses He Jehovah’s arbitrary ox the that the action board further stated that he believed in the use of capricious and therefore cannot stand. force means of defense, as a self as a I am unable to share that view. It be protecting means of his home as deciding conceded so re- without protecting means of the work of ports Depart- and recommendations of engaged those therein. And ment of contained statements which Justice further that he would not be proper, were and that referred willing go to Korea act as a opinions per- and conclusions of certain which, to the soldiers fighting Two there. were not sons disclosed appellant’s prosecuted brothers were facts. But and recommenda- convicted as draft evaders. tions addition advisory. informative and circumstances, They appellant these facts and binding ap- were in nо sense or con- peared trolling, showing and there was before local board. The what- board him, adopted, him, ever that —not this court-—observed fol- heard lowed, Separate opportunity appraise or even considered had the them. claiming lack of it in or genuineness court—
exemption. The board—not him and take opportunity to see
had his attitude whether
into consideration empty sincerity sham that of this court—had
fakery. The board—not in re- hearing his voice opportunity of sounding' suggesting true or
spect to duty purpose
underlying to evade light of all the
country. Viewed circumstances, considered
facts and totality, rational basis there was
their therefore the the classification and
fact for affirmed.
judgment should be TERMINALS, Inc. v. OIL
PATTERSON *6 et al. PORT COVINGTON THE POINT.
THE GIRARD
No. 10965. Appeals Court
United States Third Circuit.
Argued April 1953. July 14, 1953.
Decided