United States v. Cooper

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Cooper

71 M.J. 149

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DecidedFebruary 7, 2012

DocketNo. 12-6004/AR

StatusPublished

This text of 71 M.J. 149 (United States v. Cooper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

United States v. Cooper, 71 M.J. 149 (Ark. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

CCA 20110914. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date with the brief of Appellant and Joint Appendix on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE AND THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING MICHIGAN v. MOSLEY, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) AS OPPOSED TO OREGON v. BRADSHAW, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) AND EDWARDS v. ARIZONA, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED’S STATEMENT WAS INVOLUNTARILY MADE.

III.WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THE ACCUSED’S ENTIRE TYPEWRITTEN STATEMENT BASED ON A SECOND ALLEGED VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

Appellee’s answer under Rule 22(b)(1) will be filed on or before February 17, 2012.

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

CCA 20110914. Notice is hereby given that a certificate for review of the decision of the United States Army Court of Criminal Appeals was filed under Rule 22 this date with the brief of Appellant and Joint Appendix on the following issues:

I. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE AND THE ARMY COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ERRED IN APPLYING MICHIGAN v. MOSLEY, 423 U.S. 96 (1975) AS OPPOSED TO OREGON v. BRADSHAW, 462 U.S. 1039 (1983) AND EDWARDS v. ARIZONA, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE.

II. WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN FINDING THE ACCUSED’S STATEMENT WAS INVOLUNTARILY MADE.

III.WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE ERRED IN SUPPRESSING THE ACCUSED’S ENTIRE TYPEWRITTEN STATEMENT BASED ON A SECOND ALLEGED VIOLATION OF HIS RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT.

Appellee’s answer under Rule 22(b)(1) will be filed on or before February 17, 2012.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 M.J. 149, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-cooper-armfor-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack