Evening star., 1944-07-19
Bratcher Attorneys
Must Submit Briefs
On Pleas by Sept. |
Witness Says Bond Leader
Finally Was Found Unfit
For Military Service

Attorneys in the case of Everett
M. "Washie" Bratcher, Washington
band leader charged with the use of
drugs to eyade the draft. have until
September to submit briefs on a
motion that evidence secured at the
Fort Myer induction station be ex-
cluded from his trial on grounds
that it would be a violation of the
defendants constitutional rights.
The order to submit briefs was
given at the close of six-hour hear
ing yesterday in Federal Court at
Alexandria. during which it was
disclosed that the band leader was
rejected for military service in the
same pre-induction examination
that led to his indictment on the
drug charge.
Judge Robert N Pollard ordered
attorneys for both sides to deal spe-
ciflcally in their briefs with
Whether the second preinduction
examination given the defendant
November % was for the purpose of
induction or prosecution;
If the defendants constitutional
rights were violated when he was
not informed that evidence for
prosecution was being obtained.
A third question was clothed in
such technical language that the
jurist consented to edit the query
and send it later to Attorneys T.
Edward O'Connell and Leslie C.
Garnet, representing the band
leader, and to Assistant District At
toryen George r. Humrickhouse.
Bratcher Fails Test.
That Bratcher finally had failed
the military fitness tests was brought
out in testimony by Maj Malcolm D.
Harrison, medical officer at the Fort
Myer induction station. He re-
vealed that after being hospitalized
for "a hours while specimens were
taken for analysis by the Federal
Bureau Of Investigation, Bratcher's
blood pressure failed to return to
normal.
In final arguments yesterday
Bratcher's attorneys contended the
defendant had been returned to Fort
Myer for the second examination to
obtain evidence to be used in his
prosecution and not for induction
purposes. They held that this was
in violation of both the fourth and
fifth constitutional amendments.
which protect against unlawful
seizure and forcing a person. to tes-
tify against himself.
Mr.. Humrickhouse in his answer
ing argument, maintained, however.
that Bratcher's seizure was not
unreasonable" and that the fifth
! amendment provides pr-:tection
against oral testimony. He said the
evidence obtained at the induction
station is not in violation of this
right.
| Both Maj. Harrison and John D.
Clark, special FBI investigator, tes-
titled the FBI had obtained evi-
dence against Bratcher after infor-
nation had been received that Sc
lecteeS were using drugs to stay out
of the Army.
The records of all District selec-
tees rejected for military service for
apprehension were then rechecked,
h said, and some of them were re-
called for further physical examina-
tion. Bratcher had been rejected in
August.
Not Questioned by FBI.
In answer to question from the
bench, Mr.. Clark said Bratcher had
not been questioned by the FBI
prior to the second physical exami-
nation because it is not customary
for the FBI to question q man un-
der suspicion, Both Mr.. Clark and
induction ofIicials testified that
Bratcher had not been informed
that the specimen taken at the hos
pital was to be turned over to the
FBI.
Maj. Harrison earlier had testi-
Ned that the specimen had been
turned over to the FBI at his di-
rection after the band leader had
been suspected to using drugs to
produce high blood pressure. Tes-
timony did not make clear, however,
4,