376 F.2d 5 (8th Cir. 1967), 18517, Whitfield v. United States
|Citation:||376 F.2d 5|
|Party Name:||Gilbert Lewis WHITFIELD, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.|
|Case Date:||April 10, 1967|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit|
Robert B. Curtis, St. Louis, Mo., for appellant.
Irvin L. Ruzicka, Asst. U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., for appellee. Richard D. FitzGibbon, Jr., U.S. Atty., St. Louis, Mo., was with him on the brief.
Before MATTHES, LAY and HEANEY, Circuit Judges.
HEANEY, Circuit Judge.
Appellant, Gilbert Lewis Whitfield, was indicted by a grand jury on the following counts: (1) willfully and knowingly passing, with intent to defraud, seven counterfeited $10.00 Federal Reserve Notes, to Pearl Gentry, on May 30, 1966, contrary to 18 U.S.C. 472, 1 (2) transferring and delivering three counterfeited $10.00 Federal Reserve Notes to Pearl Gentry, on May 31, 1966, contrary to 18 U.S.C. 473, 2 and (3) willfully and knowingly keeping in his possession fifteen falsely made and counterfeited Federal Reserve Notes contrary to 18 U.S.C. 472. He pled not guilty, was tried before a jury, and found guilty on each count. The trial court sentenced him to serve ten years on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.
The testimony at trial indicated that the appellant, pursuant to earlier arrangements, went to the hotel room of Pearl Gentry, a St. Louis nightclub exotic dancer, about 1:30 a.m., May 30, 1966, and that before departing, he left the seven counterfeit notes, described in Count One of the indictment, on a table near her bed. 3
At noon on May 30th, Mrs. Gentry went to a Western Union office where she attempted to purchase money orders with the counterfeit notes. A Western Union employee observed that the notes were counterfeit and called the police. Mrs. Gentry was taken to police headquarters where she admitted obtaining the notes from the appellant and agreed to cooperate with the Treasury Department in apprehending him.
The following day, she talked with the appellant by phone at his hotel on two different occasions. During her first call, she explained that she had been caught with the counterfeit money and, as a result, had lost her job. She asked him to
come to her room, and the appellant said he would.
However, the appellant did not go to her room, and after a considerable wait, she again called him at his hotel. This time, they arranged to meet at a...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP