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.
MARSHALL et al. v. UNITED STATES, 1933 — 67 F.2d 300 · caselaw · US
Contracts · MBE-tested
MARSHALL et al. v. UNITED STATES
67 F.2d 300·United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth 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
MARSHALL et al. v. UNITED STATES.
No. 3557.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit,
Oct. 27, 1933.
P. H. MeEaehin, of Florence, S. C., and Alfred A. May, of Detroit, Mich., for appellants.
Henry E. Davis, U. S. Atty., of Florence, S. C. (Louis M. Shimel and S. Henry Edmunds, Jr., both of Charleston, S. C., and Fred E. Walker, Asst. U. S. Attys., of Detroit, Mich., on the brief), for the United States.
Before PABKEB- and SOPEE, Circuit Judges, and CHESNUT, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — PEE CUEIAM.]
PEE CUEIAM.
In this ease the defendants appeal from a sentence of imprisonment after having been found guilty by a jury of conspiracy to violate the National Prohibition Act and unlawful transportation of liquor. The ease was submitted on brief by counsel for the appellants. The only assignments of error that are pressed upon our consideration in the appellants’ brief relate to the introduction of alleged inadmissible and prejudicial evidence, but these assignments of error are fatally defective because of failure to comply with rule 11 of this court, in that the evidence objected to is not properly set out in the assignments. We will add, however, that an examination of the record convinces us that there was no prejudicial error committed, in .the trial, and that there was affirmative testimony amply sufficient to support the verdict of the jury and judgment of the court.
Affirmed.