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.
Earl EASTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, 1933 — 62 F.2d 1070 · caselaw · US
General
Earl EASTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
62 F.2d 1070·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·1933
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
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
Earl EASTER, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 3408.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Jan. 24, 1933.
T. W. Messiek, of Roanoke, Va., for appellant.
T. X. Parsons, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Roanoke, Va. (J. C. Shaffer, U. S. Atty., of Wytheville, Va., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PARKER, NORTHCOTT, and SOPER, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
Appellant was convicted of violation of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). His assignments of error complain of the refusal of the trial judge to direct a verdict in his favor and to instruct as requested with regard to circumstantial evidence. On the first point, it is sufficient to say, without reviewing the testimony, that we are of opinion that it was clearly sufficient to sustain the verdict. On the second, there was direct as well as circumstantial evidence pointing to the guilt of defendant, and the ease was not one calling for the instruction requested; but, even if this were not true, the point was not properly raised in the court below, as no exception was taken to the charge as given or to the refusal to charge as requested. The evidence points clearly to the guilt of appellant, the record shows that he has had a fair trial, and none of the circumstances exists which would warrant us in considering a point not properly raised in the court below. The judgment and sentence appealed from will be affirmed.
Affirmed.