Page "government" Paragraph 443

By making inroads in the name of law enforcement into the protection which Congress has afforded to the marriage relationship, the Court today continues in the path charted by the recent decision in Wyatt v. United States, 362 U.S. 525, where the Court held that, under the circumstances of that case, a wife could be compelled to testify against her husband over her objection.

One need not waver in his belief in virile law enforcement to insist that there are other things in American life which are also of great importance, and to which even law enforcement must accommodate itself.

One of these is the solidarity and the confidential relationship of marriage.

The Court's opinion dogmatically asserts that the husband-wife conspiracy doctrine does not in fact protect this relationship, and that hence the doctrine `` enthrones an unreality into a rule of law ''.

I am not easily persuaded that a rule accepted by so many people for so many centuries can be so lightly dismissed.

But in any event, I submit that the power to depose belongs to Congress, not to this Court.

I dissent.

Petitioner, who claims to be a conscientious objector, was convicted of violating 12a of the Universal Military Training and Service Act by refusing to be inducted into the armed forces.

He claims that he was denied due process of law in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because ( 1 ) at a hearing before a hearing officer of the Department of Justice, he was not permitted to rebut statements attributed to him by the local board, and ( 2 ) at the trial, he was denied the right to have the hearing officer's report and the original report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation as to his claim.

Held: On the record in this case, the administrative procedures prescribed by the Act were fully complied with ; ;

petitioner was not denied due process ; ;

and his conviction is sustained.

Pp. 60-66.

( A )

Petitioner was not denied due process in the administrative proceedings, because the statement in question was in his file, to which he had access, and he had opportunities to rebut it both before the hearing officer of the Department of Justice and before the appeal board.

Pp. 62-63.

( B )

Petitioner was not entitled to have the hearing officer's notes and report, especially since he failed to show any particular need for them and he did have a copy of the Department of Justice's recommendation to the appeal board.

Pp. 63-64.

( C )

Petitioner was not entitled, either in the administrative hearing at the Department of Justice or at his trial, to inspect the original report of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, since he was furnished a resume of it, did not challenge its accuracy, and showed no particular need for the original report.

Pp. 64-66.