Wayte v. United States case brief summary
470 U.S. 598 (1985)
CASE FACTS
The President of the United States directed male citizens to register for the Selective Service System through a general proclamation. Petitioner citizen protested and ignored the system. An indictment was eventually returned against him for failing to register in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C.S. § 453 et seq. Petitioner moved for a dismissal, contending that he was "selectively prosecuted" for resisting the system.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The district court granted the motion. Respondent government appealed, asserting that petitioner did not prove a prima facie case of discrimination. The appellate court agreed, holding that petitioner never proved that respondent focused an investigation on him because of his activities.
DISCUSSION
On a final review, the court affirmed this ruling on the grounds that allowing the avoidance of service through protest alone would have constituted an illegal form of immunity.
CONCLUSION
The appellate court's order was affirmed because petitioner failed to prove that respondent prosecuted him because of his protest activities. Moreover, the act of protesting by itself was an impermissible means of immunity from the law.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
470 U.S. 598 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner citizen appealed an order of
the United States Court of Appeals For the Ninth Circuit, which
reversed a district court's dismissal of an indictment charging
petitioner with violation of the Military Selective Service Act, 50
U.S.C.S. § 453.CASE FACTS
The President of the United States directed male citizens to register for the Selective Service System through a general proclamation. Petitioner citizen protested and ignored the system. An indictment was eventually returned against him for failing to register in violation of the Military Selective Service Act, 50 U.S.C.S. § 453 et seq. Petitioner moved for a dismissal, contending that he was "selectively prosecuted" for resisting the system.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The district court granted the motion. Respondent government appealed, asserting that petitioner did not prove a prima facie case of discrimination. The appellate court agreed, holding that petitioner never proved that respondent focused an investigation on him because of his activities.
DISCUSSION
On a final review, the court affirmed this ruling on the grounds that allowing the avoidance of service through protest alone would have constituted an illegal form of immunity.
CONCLUSION
The appellate court's order was affirmed because petitioner failed to prove that respondent prosecuted him because of his protest activities. Moreover, the act of protesting by itself was an impermissible means of immunity from the law.
Recommended Supplements for Criminal Procedure Criminal Procedure: Examples & Explanations, Sixth Edition
Emanuel Law Outline: Criminal Procedure
No comments:
Post a Comment