Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

UNITED STATES v. HUISINGA

April 28, 1969

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
JERRY LEE HUISINGA, DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Juergens, Chief Judge.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant Jerry Lee Huisinga was charged in a one-count indictment with violation of the Universal Military Training Act, by failing to report for employment in civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety or interest, and to remain in said employment for twenty-four consecutive months or until such time as he was released or transferred by proper authority, in that he knowingly failed and neglected to carry out the direction of his Local Board to report to said Local Board for assignment to hospital work at the Chicago State Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, thereby violating the provisions of Section 12 of the Act (Title 50 U.S.C.App. § 462).

The cause was tried before the Court without a jury — the jury having been waived by the defendant prior to the commencement of trial.

The cause was heard on January 27, 1969. At the conclusion of the government's case, the defendant elected not to present any evidence, moved for judgment of acquittal and for a directed finding of not guilty. Following the trial, the parties requested and were granted leave to file briefs. Briefs have now been submitted and the cause is presently for consideration.

In support of his motion for judgment of acquittal, defendant sets forth twelve points, namely:

1. That the order to report for civilian work issued in lieu of induction and the balance of the Selective Service file introduced in evidence show that the order was void as not being authorized or by order of the entire Local Board as required by Selective Service Regulation.

2. That the defendant was denied procedural and substantive due process in that he was denied a meaningful physical examination at the time he was processed for civilian work.

3. That the evidence clearly shows that there was no basis in fact for the refusal of the Selective Service Board to properly classify the defendant Jerry Lee Huisinga as IV-D, Minister of Religion.

4. That there is no evidence to show that the defendant, at the time of the issuance of the order to report for civilian work in lieu of induction, would have at said time been available for induction had he not been classified other than I-A.

5. That there is no basis in fact for the failure of the Selective Service Board or the refusal of the Selective Service Board to reopen the classification of defendant and give full and fair consideration to his application for a new classification.

6. That the defendant was denied procedural and substantive due process of law by the arbitrary reclassification from I-S to I-O on October 27, 1967 in the absence of notice to the Board that there had been a change in his status as a "full-time student."

7. That the entire Selective Service file on evidence displays that the registrant was denied procedural and substantive due process of law throughout the efforts to classify him by the Selective Service Board by reason of the manifest prejudice of the Chairman and members of the Board.

8. That the government wholly failed to establish and prove by competent evidence beyond a reasonable doubt every essential element of the offense charged in the indictment and has failed to overcome the presumption of innocence.

9. That the government has failed to establish and prove by competent evidence by a reasonable doubt the ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.