Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 21 views

    James Cornell Kidd v. United States, 386 F.2d 422, 10th Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, was classified by his local draft board as a conscientious objector available for civilian work (1-O classification). He was ordered to report for such work but refused, claiming it would indirectly aid the military. At trial, he argued he should have received a ministerial exemption (4-D classification). The court upheld the 1-O classification and found the defendant had waived his right to challenge it by not appealing through administrative procedures. While the defendant's belief in a ministerial status related to his intent, the jury found he knowingly and willfully disobeyed the order to report. The appeals court affirmed the jury's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    James Cornell Kidd v. United States, 386 F.2d 422, 10th Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    21 views2 pages
    The defendant, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, was classified by his local draft board as a conscientious objector available for civilian work (1-O classification). He was ordered to report for such work but refused, claiming it would indirectly aid the military. At trial, he argued he should have received a ministerial exemption (4-D classification). The court upheld the 1-O classification and found the defendant had waived his right to challenge it by not appealing through administrative procedures. While the defendant's belief in a ministerial status related to his intent, the jury found he knowingly and willfully disobeyed the order to report. The appeals court affirmed the jury's decision.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 1968-01-03 Precedential Status: Precedential Citations: 386 F.2d 422 Docket: 9644

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The defendant, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, was classified by his local draft board as a conscientious objector available for civilian work (1-O classification). He was ordered to report for such work but refused, claiming it would indirectly aid the military. At trial, he argued he should have received a ministerial exemption (4-D classification). The court upheld the 1-O classification and found the defendant had waived his right to challenge it by not appealing through administrative procedures. While the defendant's belief in a ministerial status related to his intent, the jury found he knowingly and willfully disobeyed the order to report. The appeals court affirmed the jury's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    21 views2 pages

    James Cornell Kidd v. United States, 386 F.2d 422, 10th Cir. (1968)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The defendant, a member of Jehovah's Witnesses, was classified by his local draft board as a conscientious objector available for civilian work (1-O classification). He was ordered to report for such work but refused, claiming it would indirectly aid the military. At trial, he argued he should have received a ministerial exemption (4-D classification). The court upheld the 1-O classification and found the defendant had waived his right to challenge it by not appealing through administrative procedures. While the defendant's belief in a ministerial status related to his intent, the jury found he knowingly and willfully disobeyed the order to report. The appeals court affirmed the jury's decision.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    386 F.

    2d 422

    James Cornell KIDD, Appellant,


    v.
    UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
    No. 9644.

    United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit.


    Dec. 5, 1967, Rehearing Denied Jan. 3, 1968.

    Charles S. Scott, Topeka, Kan., for appellant.


    James R. Ward, Asst. U.S. Atty. (Newell A. George, U.S. Atty., was with
    him on the brief), for appellee.
    Before BREITENSTEIN, HILL, and SETH, Circuit Judges.
    BREITENSTEIN, Circuit Judge.

    The jury found appellant-defendant guilty of violating the Universal Military


    Training and Service Act, 50 App. U.S.C. 456(j) and 462, and he appeals from
    the sentence imposed. The claimed errors relate to the sufficiency of the
    evidence and the validity of the instructions.

    At the time of his registration with the local draft board, defendant said that he
    was a conscientious objector because of his beliefs as a member of the
    Jehovah's Witnesses. He was classified 1-AO, a classification given those
    asserting exemption from combat training only. Later, at his request, the
    classification was changed to 1-O, which means that he was subject to civilian
    work in lieu of military induction. He was duly ordered to report for such work
    to the Kansas University Medical Center, but refused to do so on the ground
    that the acceptance of such work would conflict with his conscience because it
    would be an indirect help to the military.

    Defendant, who was 19 years old at the time of the trial in 1967, asserts that he
    has been a minister of the Jehovah's Witnesses since 1959; that in the course of
    his training, he attended five meetings a week and was instructed how to carry
    on the ministry by going from door to door and holding Bible studies; that he

    worked 30 hours a week cutting grass, and that he also worked as a waiter. He
    testified that he thought that a 1-O classification meant that he was a minister.
    4

    Objection is made to the failure of the court to submit to the jury an instruction
    that if the jury found the defendant to be a minister, the verdict should be one of
    acquittal. In Cox v. United States, 332 U.S. 442, 452-453, 68 S.Ct. 115, 92
    L.Ed. 59, the Supreme Court held that the claim of no basis in fact for a
    selective service classification is to be determined by the trial court rather than
    by the jury. Here, the trial court made the determination, upheld the 1-O
    classification and rejected the claim for 4-D classification. We have examined
    the selective service file and agree with the trial court. Additionally, defendant
    did not appeal from the decision of the board. Defendant had previously sought
    and obtained a change from I-AO to 1-O. By his failure to exercise the rights
    available to him under the administrative procedure provided by Congress, he
    waived his right to question the validity of his classification in any subsequent
    proceeding. See Noland v. United States, 10 Cir., 380 F.2d 1016, 1017 and
    cases cited in note 1. The instruction was properly refused.

    The claim of belief that he had a classification as a minister goes only to intent.
    The court told the jury that this contention should be considered by them along
    with all the other evidence in the case in determining whether the defendant
    willfully and knowingly failed to comply with the order of his draft board to
    report for civilian work. The court also properly instructed the jury on the
    meaning of willfully and knowingly. The jury resolved the issue against the
    defendant. Its determination is supported by the evidence and the reasonable
    inferences therefrom.

    Affirmed.

    You might also like