United States v. Peter J. Martino and Warren Luke Martino, A/K/A "Wimpy" Martino

459 F.2d 1032
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedSeptember 11, 1972
Docket71-2371
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 459 F.2d 1032 (United States v. Peter J. Martino and Warren Luke Martino, A/K/A "Wimpy" Martino) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. Peter J. Martino and Warren Luke Martino, A/K/A "Wimpy" Martino, 459 F.2d 1032 (5th Cir. 1972).

Opinions

PER CURIAM:

We have considered the appellants’ contentions 1) that the district court erred in refusing their lawyer’s request to leave the courtroom to confer with the appellants after the voir dire examination of the jurors; 2) that the court improperly restricted the scope of the appellants’ voir dire examination of prospective jurors; 3) that the court erred in admitting certain items of evidence allegedly prejudicial to appellants; 4) that the court committed reversible error in referring to “statutes” (in the plural) allegedly violated by the appellants, and in condoning similar reference by the Government, though in fact the appellants were charged with violating only a single provision of Mississippi law; 5) that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a verdict of conviction and the denial of a motion for acquittal; 6) that the court erred in permitting FBI agent Files to testify as to an allegedly inculpatory statement made by Peter J. Martino shortly after his arrest in the presence of counsel and after he had been advised of his rights; 7) that the district court made prejudicial remarks concerning the appellants in the presence of the jury; 8) that the court erred in overruling the appellants’ motion to dismiss the indictment because it charged the appellants with bookmaking, allegedly not a violation of Mississippi law; 9) that the court erred in denying the appellants’ motion for a bill of particulars; 10) that the court erroneously failed to instruct the jury as to the elements of the Mississippi law which the appellants were charged with violating. None of these contentions has sufficient merit to warrant further discussion.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
459 F.2d 1032, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-peter-j-martino-and-warren-luke-martino-aka-wimpy-ca5-1972.