Source: https://www.legalcrystal.com/case/99003/gonzales-vs-united-states
Timestamp: 2017-05-27 12:45:41
Document Index: 593350436

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 6', '§ 456', '§ 1606', '§ 1606', '§ 1625', '§ 1625', '§ 1625', '§ 1626', '§ 1626', '§ 1626', '§ 1606', '§ 1625']

Gonzales Vs United States - Citation 99003 - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal
Save as PDF Add a Tag Add a Note Semantics Visualize Gonzales Vs. United States - Court Judgment	LegalCrystal Citationlegalcrystal.com/99003CourtUS Supreme CourtDecided OnMar-14-1955Case Number348 U.S. 407AppellantGonzalesRespondentUnited StatesExcerpt:.....to furnish petitioner with a copy of the recommendation made by the department of justice to the appeal board under the provisions of § 6(j) of the act deprived petitioner of the right to present his side of the case to the appeal board, and the conviction is reversed. pp.
348 u. s. 408
(a) although not expressly required by § 6(j) of the act, it is implicit in the act and regulations that a copy of the recommendation of the department be furnished the registrant at the time it is forwarded to the appeal board, and that he be afforded an opportunity to reply. pp.
348 u. s. 411
-414,
(b) the right to file a statement before the appeal board includes the right to file a meaningful statement, one based on all the facts in the file..... Judgment:
Gonzales v. United States - 348 U.S. 407 (1955)
the failure to furnish petitioner with a copy of the recommendation made by the Department of Justice to the Appeal Board under the provisions of § 6(j) of the Act deprived petitioner of the right to present his side of the case to the Appeal Board, and the conviction is reversed. Pp.
(b) The right to file a statement before the Appeal Board includes the right to file a meaningful statement, one based on all the facts in the file and made with awareness of the recommendations and arguments to be countered. Pp.
(c) Petitioner's rights were not adequately protected by the provision in the regulations for a mode of "rehearing." Pp.
348 U. S. 416
Petitioner was convicted under the Universal Military Training and Service Act for refusal to submit to induction into the armed forces. 120 F. Supp. 730. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 212 F.2d 71. This Court granted certiorari. 348 U.S. 811.
Petitioner registered under the selective service laws on January 4, 1950. In his classification questionnaire, filed on March 9, 1951, he claimed exemption as a minister and conscientious objector, his claims stemming from his association with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Under the doctrines of this sect, each member is a minister, and their tenets are widely interpreted as banning personal participation in political wars.
See Sicurella v. United States, ante,
. Only petitioner's conscientious objector claim is now before the Court.
Bible from a member of the sect, and that, in December, he began "actively serving" as a Jehovah's Witness. On January 4, 1950, petitioner registered under the selective service laws. The following month, he was ordained as a minister of the Witnesses. Petitioner's religious affiliation, at least as late as 1948, had been Catholic, and his parents and family were Catholic. He began work with the Great Lakes Steel Corporation, a steel plant manufacturing articles of war, on August 19, 1950. On October 1, 1950, petitioner was recognized as a "pioneer" by the Jehovah's Witnesses, and embarked on more extensive religious activities. [
"[t]he fact that registrant became a member of the Jehovah's Witness sect one month after his Selective Service System registration in January, 1950, despite the fact that his wife had been a member for many years. [
Petitioner contends that his classification is invalid because he was not furnished a copy of the Justice Department's recommendation to the Appeal Board and accorded an opportunity to reply thereto. Section 6(j) of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, outlining the procedure in conscientious objector cases, is silent on this question. [
] But a similar silence was not held to be
a considered rejection of the right of a registrant to be supplied with a fair resume of adverse evidence in the FBI reports,
Simmons v. United States, ante,
, and we believe it also to be implicit in the Act and Regulations -- viewed against our underlying concepts of procedural regularity and basic fair play -- that a copy of the recommendation of the Department be furnished the registrant at the time it is forwarded to the Appeal Board, and that he be afforded an opportunity to reply. [
It is true that the recommendation of the Department is advisory. 50 U.S.C.App. § 456(j). Indeed, this very consideration led us, in
to allow considerable latitude in the auxiliary hearing which culminated in the Department's report. A natural corollary of this, however, is that a registrant be given an opportunity to rebut this recommendation when it comes to the Appeal Board, the agency with the ultimate responsibility for classification. For in the usual case, it is the Appeal Board which renders the selective service determination considered "final" in the courts, not
to be overturned unless there is no basis in fact.
It should be emphasized, moreover, that, in contrast to the strictly appellate functions it exercises in other cases, the Appeal Board, in handling conscientious objector claims, is the first selective service board to receive the Department's recommendation, and is usually the only decisionmaking body to pass on the entire file. An opportunity for the registrant to reply is therefore the only means of insuring that this Board will have all of the relevant data. Furthermore, if the registrant is to present his case effectively to the Appeal Board, he must be cognizant of all the facts before the Board, as well as the over-all position of the Department of Justice.
See Ohio Bell Telephone Co. v. Public Utilities Comm'n,
301 U. S. 300
265 U. S. 289
Interstate Commerce Comm. v. Louisville & N. R. Co.,
emphasis on the lateness of petitioner's conversion, inquiring instead about the tenets of the sect and petitioner's employment in the steel plant. On appeal, it was logical for petitioner to direct his attention to these matters. But the Department of Justice based its rejection of his claim on the proximity of petitioner's conversion to his registration for the draft, a contention of which he had no knowledge and no opportunity to meet. The petitioner was entitled to know the thrust of the Department's recommendation so he could muster his facts and arguments to meet its contentions.
See Morgan v. United States,
Nor is this requirement inconsistent with the views expressed in
that selective service procedures, "geared to meet the imperative needs of mobilization and national vigilance," are not to be delayed by "litigious interruption." The registrant in that case sought to make the auxiliary procedure of the Department of Justice "a full-scale trial for each appealing registrant." We refuse to compel "an all-out collateral attack at the [Department of Justice] hearing on the testimony obtained in its prehearing investigation." Here, all that is involved is the mailing of a copy of the Department's recommendation to the registrant and permitting a reply to the Appeal Board. The registrant already has the right to file a statement with the
Appeal Board. [
] Just as the right to a hearing means the right to a meaningful hearing,
United States v. Nugent, supra; Simmons v. United States, supra,
so the right to file a statement before the Appeal Board includes the right to file a meaningful statement, one based on all the facts in the file and made with awareness of the recommendations and arguments to be countered.
examine the report and "explain or correct it, or deny it."
Eagles v. Samuels,
329 U. S. 313
See also Eagles v. Horowitz,
329 U. S. 317
329 U. S. 323
. And, in a case where it was not shown that the registrant had access to the panel's report, Judge Learned Hand said:
157 F.2d 939, 943,
329 U.S. 692.
See also Brewer v. United States,
211 F.2d 864 (1954).
So basic, indeed, is this "prime requirement of any fair hearing" that counsel for the Government contended for the first time in oral argument that the rights of the registrant were amply protected by the provision in the regulations for a mode of "rehearing." In short, the argument is that, after the Appeal Board decides against the registrant and his file is returned to the local Board, he has the right under the selective service regulations to examine all information in his file, including the recommendation of the Department, 32 CFR § 1606.32(a)(1); 32 CFR § 1606.38(c). The registrant would then have a right to request a reopening of his classification, 32 CFR § 1625.1(a); 32 CFR § 1625.2, if he submitted "proof of error in documents submitted to the appeal board by the Department of Justice." [
] Moreover, he may present his contentions to the Director of Selective Service or the State Director of Selective Service, requesting a reopening of his classification or a reconsideration by the Appeal Board, 32 CFR § 1625.3(a); 32 CFR § 1626.61(a).
A much more extensive narration of petitioner's background is given in the hearing officer's report. (R. 11a
) The latter document, under applicable regulations, 32 CFR (1954 Supp.) § 1626.25, was not transmitted to the Appeal Board for its consideration in classifying petitioner.
Inapplicable to the instant question are cases dealing with whether a recommendation or intermediate report is necessary to begin with,
Public Service Corp. of New Jersey v. SEC,
129 F.2d 899 (1942), whether the recommendation can be subjected to judicial review,
, and whether satisfactory procedures were employed in formulating the recommendation,
. The latter three cases are distinguishable, moreover, because they do not involve individualized factfinding and classification, but legislative determinations, political judgments, and the exercise of judicial discretion in the imposition of sentence.
See also Mazza v. Cavicchia,
15 N.J. 498, 105 A.2d 545 (1954).
"The right to a hearing embraces not only the right to present evidence, but also a reasonable opportunity to know the claims of the opposing party, and to meet them. The right to submit argument implies that opportunity; otherwise the right may be but a barren one. Those who are brought into contest with the Government in a
32 CFR § 1626.12.
letter of General Hershey, February 4, 1955.
Regulations, 32 CFR § 1606.32(a)(1), a right to examine the report, as well as all other information in the file, and, under § 1625(1) and (2), reopen the classification on a showing of error, the "fair and just" requirement for a hearing is satisfied.