United States v. Halpin

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States v. Halpin

71 M.J. 325, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 648

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Armed Forces

DecidedMay 22, 2012

DocketNo. 12-0418/AF

StatusPublished

This text of 71 M.J. 325 (United States v. Halpin) 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. Halpin, 71 M.J. 325, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 648 (Ark. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

CCA S31805. Review granted on the following issues:

I.WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL’S IMPROPER SENTENCING ARGUMENT AMOUNTED TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.

II.WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN HE FAILED TO STOP TRIAL COUNSEL’S IMPROPER SENTENCING ARGUMENT OR ISSUE A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION.

III.WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO TRIAL COUNSEL’S IMPROPER SENTENCING ARGUMENT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

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

CCA S31805. Review granted on the following issues:

I.WHETHER TRIAL COUNSEL’S IMPROPER SENTENCING ARGUMENT AMOUNTED TO PROSECUTORIAL MISCONDUCT.

II.WHETHER THE MILITARY JUDGE PREJUDICIALLY ERRED WHEN HE FAILED TO STOP TRIAL COUNSEL’S IMPROPER SENTENCING ARGUMENT OR ISSUE A CURATIVE INSTRUCTION.

III.WHETHER TRIAL DEFENSE COUNSEL RENDERED INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE WHEN HE FAILED TO OBJECT TO TRIAL COUNSEL’S IMPROPER SENTENCING ARGUMENT.

Briefs will be filed under Rule 25.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 M.J. 325, 2012 CAAF LEXIS 648, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-halpin-armfor-2012.