OGLETREE

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By

• Spinelli v. United States, 382 F.2d 871 (8th Cir. 1967)
  …t is good if it informs the defendant of the offense with which he is charged with sufficient specificity to enable him to prepare his defense and protects him against future jeopardy. Rood v. United States, 340 F. 2d 506 (8 Cir. 1965), cert. denied 381 U.S. 906, 85 S.Ct. 1452, 14 L.Ed.2d 287. We believe this indictment, framed in the terms of the statute, measures up to that standard. Turf Center, Inc. v. United States, 325 F. 2d 793 (9 Cir. 1963); United States v. Teemer, 214 F.Supp. 952 (N.D.West Va. 196…
• James v. United States, 416 F.2d 467 (5th Cir. 1969)
  …of the offense with which he is charged with sufficient specificity to enable him to prepare his defense and to avoid the hazard of the accused being prosecuted for the same offense. Rood v. United States (8th Cir. 1965), 340 F. 2d 506, cert. denied 381 U.S. 906, 85 S.Ct. 1452, 14 L.Ed.2d 287. We are convinced that this indictment, framed in the terms of the statute, measures up to that standard. Gilstrap v. United States (5th Cir. 1968), 389 F. 2d 6, cert. denied 391 U.S. 913, 88 S.Ct. 1806, 20 L.Ed.2d 652…
• Moore v. United States, 375 F.2d 877 (8th Cir. 1967)
  …iew the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the Government. Coon v. [*880] United States, 360 F. 2d 550 (8th Cir. 1966).1 In Rood v. United States, 340 F. 2d 506 (8th Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 381 U.S. 906, 85 S.Ct. 1452, 14 L.Ed.2d 287 (1965), this court sustained a conviction for violation of this statute where it was shown that the defendant passed two spurious twenty dollar bills within a period of twenty-four hours. We think the evidence in the i…