Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lewis GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1970-11-19
Citations: 434 F.2d 740
Docket Number: No. 20010
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lewis GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and McCREE and BROOKS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 434
Pages: 740–748

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Lewis GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 20010.
United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.
Nov. 19, 1970.
Donald L. Stepner (court appointed), Covington, Ky., for appellant.
William D. Kirkland, Lexington, Ky., for appellee; Eugene E. Siler, Jr., U. S. Atty., James F. Cook, William D. Kirkland, Asst. U. S. Attys., Lexington, Ky., on brief.
Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, and McCREE and BROOKS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PHILLIPS, Chief Judge.
Griffin, a member of Jehovah's witnesses, was granted conscientious objector status by his Selective Service Board. At a jury trial in the District Court he was convicted for failure to report as a conscientious objector for civilian service at a State hospital in lieu of military service, in violation of 50 U.S. C. App. § 462.
A prison sentence of five years was imposed by the District Judge. Griffin appeals.
The controlling question on appeal is whether Griffin was entitled to an exemption as a regular or duly ordained minister of religion under 50 U.S.C. App. § 456(g).
The record shows that Griffin has devoted a considerable amount of his time to the teaching of his religious faith by door-to-door evangelism and within the local Kingdom Hall. He testified that he spends approximately four hours a day in religious work and strives to dedicate 100 hours per month to this activity. Testifying on his own behalf, he described his work generally as follows:
"Well, we go out and talk to people, show them what the Bible has to say on certain subjects. We place Bible literature with them. If they show interest, we call back and we knock on doors, we do various forms of field ministry."
He further testified that he gives Bible lectures and talks on programs at his church. He also has assisted his local minister in some ministerial duties, but has not served on a regular basis as minister of his group or has not performed regularly the public rites of his faith. Although designated as an ordained minister of Jehovah's witnesses and rendering religious service with zeal and dedication, his activities are not shown to be those of a regular minister.
This Court therefore concludes that there is a basis of fact in the record for the denial of the claim for ministerial exemption by the local board and appeals board. Balderrama v. Unit ed States, 419 F.2d 1279 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 397 U.S. 1068, 90 S.Ct. 1508, 25 L.Ed.2d 689; Robertson v. United States, 417 F.2d 440 (5th Cir., in banc); United States v. Tichenor, 403 F.2d 986 (6th Cir.).
The record demonstrates, as contended by Griffin, a lack of understanding of the relevant criteria for a ministerial exemption on the part of the members of the local board. This lack of understanding does not require reversal when the record demonstrates that both the local board and appeals board considered the claim for ministerial exemption and there is a basis in fact in the record to support the conclusion that Griffin is not a regular minister of religion.
Griffin complains that he was not furnished the proper forms for claiming a ministerial exemption. Nevertheless the record shows that the claim of ministerial status was presented to and considered by the local board and again on administrative appeal. Griffin gave the following description of the hearing before the local board:
"Well, I ttook my Bible and I told them that I was a minister and what we did and what I did. They didn't want to let me read it to them from the Bible. So I quoted to them the Scriptures that shows our ministerial activity and I quoted to them our position and they told me their position."
He further testified that he made a similar personal appearance at the administrative hearing on his appeal which was conducted in Lexington, Kentucky.
We hold that the District Court did not commit reversible error in failing to grant Griffin a verdict of acquittal or in refusing to grant a continuance. All other contentions on the appeal have been considered and are found to be without merit. The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
This Court is concerned, however, with the severity of the sentence. At oral argument it was represented by the attorney for appellant that Griffin would obey an order from the District Judge to perform conscientious objector work in a civilian capacity, although his religious beliefs would not permit him to obey such an order by his Selective Service Board.
The case is remanded to the District Court to allow for the filing of a motion under Rule 35, Fed.R.Crim.P., for review of this sentence so that the District Court may consider suspending the sentence and granting probation on condition that Griffin perform the exact conscientious objector work under orders of the District Court which he has refused to perform under orders of the Selective Service Board. United States v. Daniels, 429 F.2d 1273 (6th Cir. July 30, 1970).
Affirmed and remanded.