TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United States v. Walter J. Entrekin, Jr.

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Walter J. ENTREKIN, Jr., Appellant

United States v. Entrekin, 450 F.2d 1102 (8th Cir. 1971)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
November 9, 1971
Docket
No. 71-1288
Judges
Lay, Heaney, Stephenson
Citations
450 F.2d 11021971 U.S. App. LEXIS 7208

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

The defendant Walter J. Entrekin, Jr. was convicted under 18 U.S.C.A. § 876 for communicating a threat to injure persons and property belonging to another. On appeal the defendant attacks the admissibility of the testimony of a special agent of the F.B.I. relating to certain admissions against interest made by him while in custody. Defendant urges that the statement was involuntarily made and that it was induced by a promise of the F.B.I. agent not to arrest the defendant’s wife for the same offense.

1

During the trial the court held a hearing on defendant’s motion to suppress the agent’s testimony, and ruled:

“I find that any of these statements made by Mr. Entrekin were entirely voluntary on his part, that no promises of any kind were made to Mr. En-trekin that could or would influence him in giving his oral statements in any manner, that he never was at any time threatened, that Mr. Entrekin at all times knew his rights as they related to criminal charges, that the statements made were entirely voluntary on his part and free of promises or threats of any kind. * * * ”

On review of the record, we find sufficient evidence to sustain the trial court’s finding that the statement was voluntarily given. Cf. United States v. Barnhill, 429 F.2d 340 (8 Cir. 1970).

Judgment affirmed.

1

. After the defendant’s first statement in which his wife was implicated in the plan kto extort money, the wife was arrested. Subsequently, defendant gave a statement to show that his wife was not guilty of the charges against her. The defendant concedes that he was fully informed of his rights prior to his interrogation.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1971: 11975: 11982: 119712026peak 1971 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. State v. Alewine474 S.W.2d 848 (Mo. 1971)
  2. Walter J. Entrekin, Jr. v. United States508 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir. 1975)
  3. State v. Cleveland627 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. 1982)

Most recent

  1. State v. Cleveland627 S.W.2d 600 (Mo. 1982)
  2. Walter J. Entrekin, Jr. v. United States508 F.2d 1328 (8th Cir. 1975)
  3. State v. Alewine474 S.W.2d 848 (Mo. 1971)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
United States v. Barnhill, 429 F.2d 340 (8th Cir. 1970) 6

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list