|
|
United States v. Weller, 401 U.S. 254 (1971)
Contents:
Show Summary
Hide Summary
General SummaryThis case is from a collection containing the full text of over 16,000 Supreme Court cases from 1793 to the present. The body of Supreme Court decisions are, effectively, the final interpretation of the Constitution. Only an amendment to the Constitution can permanently overturn an interpretation and this has happened only four times in American history.
United States v. Weller, 401 U.S. 254 (1971)
United States v. Weller No. 77 Argued December 10, 1970 Decided February 24, 1971 401 U.S. 254
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Syllabus
Appellee, who claimed conscientious objector status, was refused representation by his attorney at the time of his personal appearance before his draft board on the basis of a Selective Service regulation prohibiting such representation. Subsequently indicted for refusing to submit to induction, appellee filed a motion to dismiss, contending that the denial of counsel had deprived him of due process. The District Court granted appellee’s motion on the ground that the regulation was not authorized by the Military Selective Service Act of 1967. The United States filed a notice of appeal to this Court, but, after reconsidering and concluding that this Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain its direct appeal from the District Court’s order, the United States moved for a remand to the Court of Appeals. Appellee contends that the "construction of the statute" dismissal provision or the "motion in bar" provision of the Criminal Appeals Act gives this Court jurisdiction of the appeal.
Held:
1. This Court has no jurisdiction of the appeal under the "construction of the statute" provision, since the interrelation of the regulation and the statute fell short of that required for the dismissal to have been based upon the construction of the statute. United States v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431, distinguished. Pp. 257-259.
2. The "motion in bar" provision applies only when a defendant, while not denying the commission of the offense, claims that an extraneous factor forecloses prosecution. That provision is inapplicable here, since appellee contends that his refusal to submit to induction was not a crime because of the denial of counsel by his draft board. Pp. 259-261.
309 F.Supp. 50, remanded.
STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C.J., and BLACK, HARLAN, BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. DOUGLAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 261.
Contents:
Chicago: U.S. Supreme Court, "Syllabus," United States v. Weller, 401 U.S. 254 (1971) in 401 U.S. 254 401 U.S. 255. Original Sources, accessed November 24, 2024, http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SH5XP83SJPSBVS8.
MLA: U.S. Supreme Court. "Syllabus." United States v. Weller, 401 U.S. 254 (1971), in 401 U.S. 254, page 401 U.S. 255. Original Sources. 24 Nov. 2024. http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SH5XP83SJPSBVS8.
Harvard: U.S. Supreme Court, 'Syllabus' in United States v. Weller, 401 U.S. 254 (1971). cited in 1971, 401 U.S. 254, pp.401 U.S. 255. Original Sources, retrieved 24 November 2024, from http://originalsources.com/Document.aspx?DocID=SH5XP83SJPSBVS8.
|