Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

United States v. Gerald Edward McCreery

473 F.2d 1381

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1973-02-02
Topic
general

STEVENS, Circuit Judge. Defendant was indicted on March 24, 1971, for failing to report for induction on August 7, 1968. Pursuant to defendant’s discovery motion, on February 11, 1972, the district court ordered the government to produce Selective Service System form 261 for June 13, 1968, and SSS forms 200 and 201 for three months prior to the issuance of defendant’s order to report for induction. The purpose of the discovery order was to give defendant the opportunity to ascertain whether he had a valid defense based on the possibility that the Board’s quota had been filled, or that he had been called out of order. The records which the government was ordered to produce had, however, been destroyed pursuant to existing Selective Service Regulations.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed United States v. Gerald Edward McCreery. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
12 opinions
UNITED STATES v. McCREERY,473 F.2d 1381(7th Cir. 1973)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. GERALD EDWARD McCREERY,
DEFENDANT-APPELLEE.
No. 72-1457.
United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.
Argued January 24, 1973.
Decided February 2, 1973.
John O. Olson, U.S. Atty., Eric J. Wahl, Asst. U.S. Atty., Madison, Wis., for plaintiff-appellant.

David Heitzman, Madison, Wis., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Before SWYGERT, Chief Judge, DUFFY, Senior Circuit Judge, and STEVENS, Circuit Judge.
STEVENS, Circuit Judge.
[1] Defendant was indicted on March 24, 1971, for failing to report for induction on August 7, 1968. Pursuant to defendant's discovery motion, on February 11, 1972, the district court ordered the government to produce Selective Service System form 261 for June 13, 1968, and SSS forms 200 and 201 for three months prior to the issuance of defendant's order to report for induction. The purpose of the discovery order was to give defendant the opportunity to ascertain whether he had a valid defense based on the possibility that the Board's quota had been filled, or that he had been called out of order. The records which the government was ordered to produce had, however, been destroyed pursuant to existing Selective Service Regulations. When this fact was brought to the attention of the district court, on April 20, 1972, he dismissed the indictment. The government has appealed form that order.

[2] We are confronted at the outset by defendant's suggestion that our en banc decision in United States v. Ponto,454 F.2d 657(1971), requires dismissal of the appeal. As inPontoand its companion cases,1this indictment was sufficient on its face; the order of dismissal was predicated on facts brought to the court's attention after the indictment was returned and before a jury had been impaneled. See United States v. Brewster,408 U.S. 501,506,92 S.Ct. 2531,33 L.Ed.2d 507.

[3] The government does not contend that this case is factually distinguishable fromPonto.It correctly points out thatPontoarose prior to the amendment of the Criminal Appeals Act which became effective on January 2, 1971, whereas the amended statute is applicable to this appeal. See84 Stat. 1880, 1890. But our decision inPontorested on two independent grounds, one statutory and one constitutional. Assumingarguendothat the statutory analysis is not applicablePage 1382to the amended act, it is nevertheless perfectly clear that the constitutional analysis inPontocompels the conclusion that the order of April 20, 1972, was an acquittal from which the government may not appeal. See454 F.2d at 663-664; see also United States v. Gustavson, 7 Cir.,454 F.2d 677,678. The government's arguments to the contrary merely restate the reasoning of the dissenting opinion inPontowhich was squarely rejected by the en banc majority. See454 F.2d at 667.

[4] The appeal is

[5] Dismissed.
  1. United States v. Grochowski,454 F.2d 657; United States v. Gustavson,454 F.2d 677. ↩