Opinion ID: 294464
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Order of Call

Text: 18 Following his indictment, Dannehy sought and received information from the Anchorage board concerning other registrants. He now argues that some ten registrants should have been called before he was and lists them in several categories. 19 Under United States v. Baker, 416 F.2d 202 (9th Cir. 1969), the order of call affects a regustrant's substantial rights and the government was here required to justify bypassing these registrants by affirmative evidence. The affirmative evidence here consisted of the detailed testimony of the executive secretary of the local board pointing out exactly why the ten registrants were handled as they were. 20 We think the law concerning order of call is well stated in the Baker case and see no reason to extend this opinion by discussing each registrant in detail. Suffice it to say that the government here has met its burden of proof. 21 This case was tried to a jury which heard detailed evidence from defendant and the government concerning the order of call. The jury was instructed as to the order of call question. No objection was taken at that time as to the propriety of the instructions, (see Rule 30, Fed.R.Crim.Proc.), and Dannehy does not suggest that they were in any way an improper statement of the law. In short, the jury resolved all factual questions against him and we find nothing to indicate that their resolution was clearly erroneous. 22 Affirmed.