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.
Frank GEMMA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee; Tony CAVELLO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, 1932 — 61 F.2d 1027 · caselaw · US
General
Frank GEMMA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee; Tony CAVELLO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
61 F.2d 1027·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1932
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
Frank GEMMA, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. Tony CAVELLO, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
Nos. 9411, 9412.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Oct. 4, 1932.
William N. Jamieson, of Omaha, Neb., for appellants.
Edson Smith, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Omaha, Neb. (Charles E. Sandall, U. S. Atty., and Ambrose C. Epperson, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of Omaha, Neb., Robert Yan Pelt, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Lincoln, Neb., and Lawrence I. Shaw, Asst. U. S. Atty., of Omaha, Neb., on the brief), for the United States.
Before KENYON, GARDNER, and SANBORN, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — PER CURIAM.]
PER CURIAM.
These appellants are convicted of violations of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA). There wore two indictments, each containing several counts against these appellants, and the two cases were consolidated for trial. A number of alleged errors are urged in argument, the principal ones being that the verdict was not sustained by sufficient evidence; that the court erred in receiving in cross-examination of appellant G (Kama certain testimony. The evidence is amply sufficient to warrant conviction of both appellants, and no prejudicial error was committed in the trial.
The appeals seem to us entirely frivolous, and evidently taken for the purpose of delay. The judgments as to each appellant are affirmed, and it is directed that mandates issue immediately.
Affirmed.