No syfertize treatment data for this case.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
Richard Andrew BATTIN, Defendant-Appellant
v.
Richard Andrew BATTIN, Defendant-Appellant
72-1674.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Aug 31, 1972.
466 F.2d 1194
Douglas Jay Sorensen (argued), of Romines, Wolpman, Tooby, Eichner, Sorensen, Constantinides & Cohen, Menlo Park, Cal., for defendant-appellant., Joseph Reeves, Asst. U. S. Atty. (argued), John F. Cooney, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., James L. Browning, Jr., U. S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffappellee.
Lumbard, Hamley, Wallace.
Published
PER CURIAM:
Richard Andrew Battin appeals from his conviction for failure to report for induction, in violation of 50 U.S.C.App. § 462. He argues here that the trial court erred in refusing to admit expert testimony that the 1970 draft lottery (held on December 1, 1969): (1) was not random in the sense that statisticians and other scientists use that word; (2) was not random in the ordinary English usage of that word; and (3) was so conducted that each registrant did not have the same chance of appearing at the top of the draft list as at the bottom or somewhere in the middle.
A similar contention was made and rejected in United States v. Kotrlik, 465 F.2d 976 (9th Cir. 1972). On the authority of that decision we
Affirm.