Stiles v. United States

PETITIONER: Philip Jerome Stiles
RESPONDENT: United States
LOCATION: Bethlehem Steel Corp. High Pier

DOCKET NO.: 74
DECIDED BY: Warren Court (1967-1969)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 393 US 219 (1968)
DECIDED: Dec 09, 1968
ARGUED: Nov 20, 1968

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Stiles v. United States

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - November 20, 1968 in Stiles v. United States

Earl Warren:

Number 74, Philip Jerome Stiles, petitioner versus United States.

Mr. Rogers.

Charles J. Rogers, Jr.:

Mr. Chief Justice, distinguished Justices of the Honorable Supreme Court of the United States, I would like to indicate at the outset for the record that I would like to allocate my time in 20 minutes for argument and reserve 10 minutes if possible for rebuttal.

Earl Warren:

It's alright.

Charles J. Rogers, Jr.:

Thank you Mr. Chief Justice.

I'd like to also for the record indicate that I was assisted and I truly appreciate the help from the Solicitor of this Court, John Knotty, III of Rhode Island.

The petitioner if it please the Court is under sentence at the present time to a term of two years, an institution to be decided by the United States Attorney General.

He was charged, tried and convicted first in the District of Rhode Island in the federal district court for a willful failure and a knowing failure to report for induction at the military forces of the United States.

The trouble of the case I feel is accurately cited in the brief for petitioner and I submit to the court that perhaps the crowning issue in this case is whether or not the defendant in that case and the appellant here did in fact have noticed of the draft notice itself.

The record I feel is replete of testimony that would clearly indicate that the petitioner in this case, Philip Jerome Stiles did not in fact receive a notice that was sent to him by the draft board from Westerly, Rhode Island.

The first contact of the petitioner had with the Selective Service System of the United States occurred on the 18th day of April 1963 wherein he filled down his application pursuant to the regulations.

I indicate to Chief Justice and Your Honorable Justices of this Court that his first communication with them subsequent thereto was on 05/17/1963 wherein the petitioner's case advised his local selective service draft board that he would in fact be in the State of Tennessee and the transcript will indicate that this was received by the local draft board on the 20th day of May 1963.

The matter of notice relative to a receipt of draft notices has in fact been discussed on the case of Bartchy versus the United States and I submit that this is a very important case.

The case does indicate that the defendant does have a duty to promptly advice his draft board of his address but the case indicates that he is not.

In fact the client remained in one place provided even he is in fact anticipating the arrival of a draft notice.

I submit that the petitioner in this case did not in fact anticipate a draft notice.

I must admit and I do admit that the petition in this case directed communications to the local draft board that contained a language that was less than desirable from the point of view of the recipient.

However, the defendant did in fact and the appellant in this case did in fact notified his draft board that he would in fact not be at the address that was listed on his papers in the custody of the draft board and subsequent thereto he was sent an induction notice but the draft board.

He notified them by letter on January 17, 1966 and he advised the draft board that he would be away.

Earl Warren:

Now did it -- in advising the draft board that he would be away from his residence, did he advise them where he would be?

Charles J. Rogers, Jr.:

If it please the Court, he did not but he did advice them that he would in fact furnish addresses if it please the Court and I --

Earl Warren:

Can he do it later?

Charles J. Rogers, Jr.:

He did, if it please the Court.

The notice was sent on the 17th day of January 1966 and the draft board properly, promptly rather on January 24, 1966 sent an induction notice to him ordering him to in fact report for induction on the 9th day of February 1966.

This notice was in fact received by a person other than the applicant.

It was received by his mother.

Additionally, I indicate for the record that it was received at an address other than the address that it was sent to.

It was sent to 10 Foulk Road.

It was received not by the applic -- by the appellant but by the mother of the appellant and further than that it was received at an address other than the address of the appellant.

I submit that the --