UNITED STATES
v.
BAXTER
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a defendant charged with violating the Selective Training and Service Act cannot retry the factual issue of his draft board's determination regarding his ministerial exemption.
Baxter was convicted of violating the Selective Training and Service Act for failing to report for induction. He admitted refusal but claimed he was a…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Judicial Review Of Draft Board Decisions cases and more on FLexlaw
EVANS, Circuit Judge.
Defendant Baxter was charged with, and convicted of, a violation of the Selective Training and Service Act of 1940, 50 U.S.C.A. Appendix, § 301 et seq. He failed to report for induction into the military-service when ordered so .to do by the local draft board. He admits his refusal so to report but defends his action on the ground that he is a “minister of Jehovah’s Witnesses” and as such was not subject to the order which the board made and which was based on its finding that he was not-a duly ordained minister of the gospel.
On the trial of .the criminal case he sought to retry the fact issue decided against him by the board, and the court refused to permit such a retrial. His appeal is based on the alleged error of the court in so ruling.
The numerous decisions of this and other courts to the contrary* were sustained by the Supreme Court in the case decided January 3, 1944, entitled Falbo v. United States, 64 S.Ct. 346. Further discussion is unnecessary.
The judgment is affirmed.
*
United States v. Mroz, 7 Cir., 136 F. 2d 221; United States v. Van Den Berg, 7 Cir., 139 F. 2d 654; United States v. Fratrick, Jr., 7 Cir., 140 F. 2d 5; United States v. Sauler and Paulos, 7 Cir., 139 F. 2d 173; United States v. Messersmith, 7 Cir., 138 F. 2d 599; Goff v. United States, 4 Cir., 135 F. 2d 610; Seele v. United States, 8 Cir., 133 F. 2d 1015; United States v. Kauten, 2 Cir., 133 F. 2d 703.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Estep v. United States, 327 U.S. 114 (U.S. 1946)
Authorities Cited
- Falbo v. United States, 320 U.S. 549 (U.S. 1944)
- United States v. Kauten, 133 F.2d 703 (2d Cir. 1943)
- Goff v. United States, 135 F.2d 610 (4th Cir. 1943)
- United States v. Mroz, 136 F.2d 221 (7th Cir. 1943)
- Seele v. United States, 133 F.2d 1015 (8th Cir. 1943)
- United States v. Van Den Berg, 139 F.2d 654 (7th Cir. 1944)
- United States v. Messersmith, 138 F.2d 599 (7th Cir. 1943)
- United States v. Fratrick, 140 F.2d 5 (7th Cir. 1944)
- United States v. Sauler, 139 F.2d 173 (7th Cir. 1943)