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.
Peter MARKINKOVITCH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, 1931 — 51 F.2d 1080 · caselaw · US
Criminal Law · MBE-tested
Peter MARKINKOVITCH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee
51 F.2d 1080·United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit·1931
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
Peter MARKINKOVITCH, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.
No. 9117.
Circuit Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
Aug. 24, 1931.
J. R. Lones, of Omaha, Neb. (Raymond T. Coffey, of Omaha, Neb., on the brief), for appellant.
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 Van 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 STONE and GARDNER, Circuit Judges, and YOUMANS, District Judge.
[MAJORITY — STONE, Circuit Judge.]
STONE, Circuit Judge.
This is an appeal from a conviction on three counts of an indictment, each charging sale of intoxicants.
The indictment was in four counts, three for different sales and one for possession of certain described liquor. The liquor described in the possession count was found in the basement of an adjoining building. The court directed a verdict upon the possession count, and the only errors urged here are that it was erroneous to submit this liquor to the grand jury and that it was erroneous for the government to attempt to offer it in evidence, as such offer influenced the trial jury. Neither of these grounds is properly raised in the trial court, neither is properly raised in the specification of errors, and there is no virtue in either. This appeal is so wanting in merit that it is frivolous.
The judgment is affirmed, and it is ordered that the mandate issue forthwith.