MASTERSON, District Judge.
Defendant, Paul Albert Hoffmann, was indicted for refusal to submit to induction into the Armed Forces in violation of 50 U.S.C. App. § 462. When the case came to trial, the parties stipulated to the admission into evidence of a certified copy of defendant's Selective Service File and the relevant official minutes of defendant's local board. Thereupon the Government rested and the defendant moved to dismiss. In substance, defendant's motion is for a judgment of acquittal and it will be treated as such.
The issue we must decide is a narrow one. The Government concedes
that defendant made out a prima facie case that he is conscientiously opposed to war in any form,
and that the opposition is based upon religious training belief, as the term has been construed by the Supreme Court.
The local board could reject defendant's conscientious objector claim only if it found that these beliefs were not sincerely held. Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375, 75 S. Ct. 392, 99 L. Ed. 428 (1955).
In Scott v. Commanding Officer, 431 F.2d 1132 (3rd Cir. 1970), the Court of Appeals held that the rejection of a registrant's prima facie case for conscientious objector status without any statement of reasons vitiates the legality of his induction order. Although the Scott decision was subsequent to the local board's action, it is clearly applicable to the facts of this case. United States v. Crownfield, 439 F.2d 839 (3rd Cir. 1971). We have concluded that the action of the local board
in this case does not satisfy the requirements of Scott and, therefore, defendant's induction order was invalid.
Defendant was initially given the Selective Service Classification II-S upon entering college in 1964. Prior to graduation, defendant applied to a number of graduate schools and also to VISTA, but these applications were unsuccessful. Upon graduation from college, defendant was reclassified I-A, and he took employment in a bakery. In October, 1968, defendant was notified to report for a pre-induction physical examination. After securing a transfer of the place of examination, he reported, and, on December 6, 1968, was found qualified.
On November 27, 1968, defendant had requested Form 150 for applying for reclassification as a conscientious objector. The completed Form 150, including twenty-one (21) typed pages explaining his beliefs and their development, was returned to the local board on January 6, 1969. The application was supported by a number of letters from family members and college professors which attest to Mr. Hoffmann's sincerity and honesty.
On April 23, 1969, defendant appeared before the local board for an interview at which he was orally questioned and filled out another questionnaire. The local board's summary of this interview is set out in full as follows:
"Registrant appeared with his brother, Erik P. Hoffmann, P.H.D. Verbal answers to suggested questions conformed substantially to statements dated 1/6/69 and 4/23/69. Registrant sometimes is hazy in his thinking and circumspect in his answers -- 1A -- Facts do not warrant reopening. He was not a CO in 1964, only became one in later years. Now employed as a stock clerk in a bakery. Does not participate in any community betterment activities in spite of his having been turned down by Vista for lack of community experience and his professed desire to still participate in Vista." (Emphasis added.)