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.
LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 1933 — 64 F.2d 538 · caselaw · US
Torts · MBE-tested
LEWIS V. UNITED STATES
64 F.2d 538·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth 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
LEWIS V. UNITED STATES.
No. 9574.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
March 24, 1933.
M. S. Winthrop and S. J. Kroman, both of Minneapolis, Minn., for appellant.
Lewis L. Drill, U. S. Atty., and Robert V. Rensch, Asst. U. S. Atty., both of St. Paul, Minn.
Before STONE, VAN VALKEN-BURGH, and BOOTH, Circuit Judges.
[MAJORITY — STONE, Circuit Judge.]
STONE, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction for maintaining a nuisance in violation of the National Prohibition Act (27 USCA).
There are fifteen assignments of error. Although there is an express abandonment of all except such as concern the sufficiency of the evidence, counsel briefly argue three matters relating to admission of evidence. There is no dispute as to the existence of the nuisance, the contest is over the connection of appellant therewith. Counsel contend that the evidence was as consistent with m-noeenee as with guilt. This is erroneous. The evidence presented two distinct and irreconcilable situations. The evidence f(or the government, if true, showed clearly that appellant was an active participant in the maintenance of the nuisance. The testimony of defendant (slightly corroborated by another defendant who pleaded guilty) tended to show he had severed his connection with this resort.
There is no merit in any of the objections to the three rulings on evidence which are briefly argued. There is an entire lack of merit in this appeal.
The judgment is affirmed, and the mandate will issue forthwith.