Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States v. Jerry Layne Allen

United States v. Jerry Layne Allen, 445 F.2d 849 (5th Cir. 1971)

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1971-07-15
Topic
general

PER CURIAM: Allen appeals from the District Court’s judgment of conviction of a violation of 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462(a). 1 We affirm. Allen is nineteen years old. He attacks the composition of the grand jury which indicted him because it consisted only of registered voters, who, by necessity, must be twenty-one years old. Allen urges that he was thus denied a jury of his peers in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Jerry Layne Allen. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
1 opinion
UNITED STATES v. ALLEN,445 F.2d 849(5th Cir. 1971)
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Layne ALLEN,
Defendant-Appellant.
No. 71-1550 Summary Calendar.fn*
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 15, 1971.
James F. Mulla, Jr., New Orleans, La. (court appointed), for defendant-appellant.

Gerald J. Gallinghouse, U.S. Atty., Robert L. Livingston, Jr., Mary Williams Cazalas, Asst. U.S. Attys., for the United States.
Before GEWIN, GOLDBERG and DYER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Allen appeals from the District Court's judgment of conviction of a violation of 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462(a).1We affirm.

Allen is nineteen years old. He attacks the composition of the grand jury which indicted him because it consisted only of registered voters, who, by necessity, must be twenty-one years old. Allen urges that he was thus denied a jury of his peers in violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments. We disagree. Nothing identifiable or distinctive about young adults under twenty-one sets them apart from young adults over twenty-one, who are eligible for jury duty. See United States v. KuhnPage 850and Greenwood, 5 Cir. 1971,441 F.2d 179. There was thus no showing of discrimination or exclusion of a distinct group from jury participation. Whitus v. State of Georgia, 1967,385 U.S. 545,87 S.Ct. 643,17 L.Ed.2d 599; Hernandez v. State of Texas, 1954,347 U.S. 475,74 S.Ct. 667,98 L.Ed. 866.

Allen first asserted his claim as a conscientious objector at his induction station. This was too late. Ehlert v. United States, 1971,402 U.S. 99,91 S. Ct. 1319,28 L.Ed.2d 625.

Affirmed.Page 851
  1. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York et al., 5 Cir. 1970,431 F.2d 409, Part I. ↩
  2. Refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States. ↩