United States v. Bruce Ogilvie Irwin

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that the district court committed no error in excluding the defendant’s testimony explaining his failure to report for induction on December 8, 1972, in accordance with the order of his local Selective Service Board.1 The testimony was excluded both by striking the testimony quoted in the majority opinion at page 1051 and by rejecting the offer of proof described in note 1 of this dissent.

As the majority opinion indicates at page 1051, a unanimous panel of this court said in United States v. Rabb, 394 F.2d 230, 231-33, in construing 50…