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