“Such a [blood] test could not be required of appellant’s claimed father, since he is not a party to the action.”
How later courts described this case
- “Such a [blood] test could not be required of appellant’s claimed father, since he is not a party to the action.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
DENMAN, Circuit Judge
(concurring).
I concur in the reasoning of the court that appellant plaintiff failed to maintain his burden of proof. It is further supported by the testimony of the disinterested witness Ching that he read to both the father and the son the document containing their agreement to allow their blood tests and explained it to them before they signed it. This fully supports the Court’s finding V stating:
“During the course of Plaintiff’s application for a Certificate of Citizenship, he and his alleged father were requested to take a blood test. This, Plaintiff and his alleged father voluntarily agreed to do, as evidenced by documents signed by them, and which were explained to them through a Chinese interpreter at the Immigration and Naturalization Service.” (Emphasis supplied.)
On appeal it must he presumed that the Court accepted this evidence and disbelieved their inconsistent testimony to the contrary. No more seems needed to dispose of their long delayed contention that they were coerced.
This conclusion and that concerning the abuse of the right of privacy is further supported by the reasoning of the recent opinion of the Supreme Court in Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U.S. 432 , 77 S.Ct. 408 , 1 L.Ed.2d 448 , holding that the taking of a blood test without the consent of the person subject to a qualified physician’s hypodermic withdrawal of the blood, is not violative of any constitutional right.