Study aid, not legal advice. caselaw is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice or engage in the unauthorized practice of law (UPL). All briefs, outlines, and citation tools on these pages are educational summaries for law students; they are not a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney admitted in your jurisdiction. Bar-admission rules vary by state. For court filings or client matters, verify every authority against the official reporter and your court's local rules. Use of caselaw does not create an attorney-client relationship.
Louis GATTO v. UNITED STATES; Dorothy GATTO v. UNITED STATES, 1933 — 63 F.2d 1003 · caselaw · US
General
Louis GATTO v. UNITED STATES; Dorothy GATTO v. UNITED STATES
63 F.2d 1003·United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit·1933
Brief incoming
Hand-reviewed Bluebook brief (procedural posture, facts, issue, holding, reasoning, dissent) ships once the AI generation pipeline runs through this case. Join the waitlist to get notified when 1L briefs go live.
Opinion
Louis GATTO v. UNITED STATES. Dorothy GATTO v. UNITED STATES.
Nos. 4863, 4864.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit..
April 18, 1933.
John J. McMahon, of Chicago, Ill., and Kenneth C. Charlton, of Birmingham, Ala., for appellants.
Oliver M. Loomis, U. S. Atty., and George L. Rulison and William B. Duff, Asst. U. S. Attys., all of South Bend, Ind.
Before EVANS and SPARKS, Circuit Judges, and BALTZELL, District Judge.
Rehearing denied May 12, 1933.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Both appeals were presented upon a single record and heard together. Similar ques- • tions are presented by both appellants. They challenge tho sufficiency of the evidence to support their conviction. The indictment charged them with having unlawfully and feloniously transported in interstate com-merce one Margaret Prox with the unlawful. intent and purpose of having her engage in' immoral practices. A jury trial was waived,. and the court found in favor of the government.
We are unable to agree with counsel who earnestly argue that neither appellant guiltily participated in the transportation of the female for immoral purposes. The evidence we think amply supports the findings of the District Court. No valuable purpose would be served by a discussion of such evidence.
Other assignments of error deal with the rulings of the court on the admission or rejection of evidence. They too have been examined and with the result that no prejudicial error has been found respecting such rulings.
The judgments and sentences are affirmed.