UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE,
v.
JERRY LAYNE ALLEN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the grand jury composition did not violate the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and the conscientious objector claim was untimely.
Allen, nineteen, was convicted of violating 50 U.S.C.A. App. § 462(a). He challenged the grand jury's composition, arguing it excluded young adults un…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Conscientious Objector Status cases and more on FLexlaw
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. 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. Kuhn and 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.
. Refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces of the United States.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Foster v. Sparks, 506 F.2d 805 (5th Cir. 1975)
Authorities Cited
- Isbell Enters., Inc. v. Citizens Cas. Co. OF NEW York, 431 F.2d 409 (5th Cir. 1970)
- Ehlert v. United States, 402 U.S. 99 (U.S. 1971)
- Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1954)
- Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U.S. 545 (U.S. 1967)
- United States v. Kuhn, 441 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1971)