Joe Ronald Kretchet v. States District Court for the Southern

Appellant was indicted for knowingly failing and refusing to be inducted into the armed forces of the United States as ordered by his local draft board, in violation of Title 50 Appendix, U.S.C.A. § 462. 1 Appellant waived trial by jury, and following a trial before the district court was found guilty of the offense charged, and thereafter was committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a period of three years.

Jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C.A. § 3231 and Title 50 Appendix U.S.C.A. § 462. Jurisdiction of this Court to review the appeal from the judgment rests on the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1291 and 1294.

In appellant’s brief filed October 26, 1959, the questions presented for review on this appeal are stated as follows:

I. Whether the denial of the claim for classification as a conscientious objector was without basis in fact, making a final I-A classification by the appeal board ar *562 bitrary, capricious and without basis in fact;

II. Whether the Department of Justice denied appellant procedural due process in failing to supply to the appeal board and to the appellant a copy of…

I dissent.

I fully agree with Judge JERTBERG that we need not reach the second and third grounds originally urged by appellant, and decided adversely to him by the Supreme Court in Gonzales v. United States, 364 U.S. 59 , 80 S.Ct. 1554 , 4 L.Ed. 2d 1569 (decided June 27, 1960). I further fully agree with Judge JERTBERG in his splendid analysis of the record here presented, and his conclusion that the adverse recommendation of the Department of Justice rests on the three grounds he lists at page 563 of 284 F.2d. He then relies on Sicurella v. United States, 1955, 348 U.S. 385 , 75 S.Ct. 403 , 99 L.Ed. 436 to reverse, and it is there we part company. In Sicurella, the-Supreme Court ruled that because Sicurella was admittedly sincere, although, he was ready to engage in a “theocratic-war” if Jehovah so commanded, he was. still entitled to classification as a conscientious objector, and it was an error at law for the Department of Justice-to classify him otherwise.

But this Kretchet case does not reveal similar facts, or beliefs. In Sicurella,. supra, the draft registrant categorically rejected the use of carnal weapons under any circumstances:

The Supreme Court in Sicurella…

284 F.2d 561 Joe Ronald KRETCHET, Appellant, v. States District Court for the Southern Appellee. No. 16260. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Dec. 1, 1960. Hayden C. Covington, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant. Laughlin E. Waters, U.S. Atty., Robert J. Jensen, Robert D. Hornbaker, Asst. U.S. Attys., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee. Before STEPHENS, BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges. JERTBERG, Circuit Judge. 1 Appellant was indicted for knowingly failing and refusing to be inducted into the armed forces of the United States as ordered by his local draft board, in violation of Title 50 Appendix, U.S.C.A. 462. 1 Appellant waived trial by jury, and following a trial before the district court was found guilty of the offense charged, and thereafter was committed to the custody of the Attorney General of the United States for a period of three years. 2 Jurisdiction of the district court was invoked under the provisions of Title 18 U.S.C.A. 3231 and Title 50 Appendix U.S.C.A. 462. Jurisdiction of this Court to review the appeal from the judgment rests on the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C.A. 1291 and 1294. 3 In appellant's brief filed October 26, 1959, the questions presented for…