United States v. Gregory Drew Harris

Harris was convicted of having violated 50 U.S.C. App. § 462, in that on August 6, 1968, he failed to comply with an Order to report for induction into the armed forces. He concedes the technical violation but urges error both in the course of his trial and in the processing of his selective service file by his local Selective Service Board. We affirm.

Harris first contends that the district judge, before whom he was tried without a jury, improperly denied his oral motion for a continuance. The motion in question was made for the alleged purpose of securing the attendance of witnesses. It was made, for the first time, when the ease was called, as previously scheduled, for trial. The motion was denied and the trial proceeded.

In making his first contention, Harris assumes a heavy burden, as the discretion of the trial judge in the disposition of a motion for continuance is rightly broad. See Avery v. Alabama, 308 U.S, 444, 60 S.Ct. 321 , 84 L.Ed. 377 (1940); Daut v. United States, 405 F.2d 312 (9th Cir. 1968). A continuance sought to obtain witnesses is appropriately denied if due diligence has not been exercised to compel their attendance (Leino v. United States, 338 F.2d 154…