United States v. Michael Anthony Munsen

Munsen appeals from his conviction for refusing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U. S.C. App. § 462.

Munsen registered with his local board in Portland, Oregon, in 1966 and, after a physical examination, was classified I-A.

In January 1967, Munsen requested permission to leave the country in order to work as a merchant seaman. The local board consented to a two-month absence.

On October 6, 1967, Munsen married. The following week he again requested permission to leave the country. He testified that he told a clerk at the local board that he was married, and that his wife was pregnant. He said he explained that he wanted to work as a merchant seaman so he could support his new family. The file, however, contains no record of this conversation. The clerk was not called as a witness.

The district judge, sitting without a jury, did not believe Munsen’s testimony, and found that Munsen had failed to advise the local board of his marital status when he visited the board’s office October 12, 1967.

Whether or not Munsen informed the local board of his marriage, no change in classification was made. The clerk, without notifying the board, apparently told…

443 F.2d 1229 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Michael Anthony MUNSEN, Appellant. No. 71-1275. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. June 11, 1971. Michael H. Weiss, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before HAMLIN and WRIGHT, Circuit Judges, and GOODWIN, District Judge. * ALFRED T. GOODWIN, District Judge: Munsen appeals from his conviction for refusing to submit to induction into the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U. S.C. App. § 462. Munsen registered with his local board in Portland, Oregon, in 1966 and, after a physical examination, was classified I-A. In January 1967, Munsen requested permission to leave the country in order to work as a merchant seaman. The local board consented to a two-month absence. On October 6, 1967, Munsen married. The following week he again requested permission to leave the country. He testified that he told a clerk at the local board that he was married, and that his wife was pregnant. He said he explained that he wanted to work as a merchant seaman so he could support his new family. The file, however, contains no record of this conversation. The clerk was…

(dissenting) :

I respectfully dissent.

The opinion reversing appellant’s conviction is based on the delay between the original induction order, October 16, 1967, and the date upon which appellant refused to submit to induction, April 29, 1969.

As I see it, all of the delays and postponements between those two dates were triggered by the actions of appellant and were not prejudicial to him.

I do not believe they should now be considered sufficient to reverse his conviction.

I would affirm.