Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Eugene Volokh, When may a felon get a gun to break up a fight? 8CA US v. Cooney 07/22

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156

    Eugene Volokh, When may a felon get a gun to break up a fight? 8CA US v. Cooney 07/22

    Cooney was charged with one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm. Prior to trial, Cooney filed a notice of defense in which he disclosed his intent to present a justification defense, specifically, the defense of others. In response, the government filed a motion in limine seeking to preclude Cooney from arguing such a defense. Following an evidentiary hearing, the district court granted the government’s motion, after which Cooney entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the district court’s ruling on the government’s motion. The district court sentenced Cooney as an armed career criminal, … and imposed the statutory mandatory minimum sentence of 180 months’ imprisonment….

    http://media.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/14/07/133078U.pdf

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/v...ak-up-a-fight/
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    He could have called the police? What a joke.

    The whole concept is a joke.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Not allowing a defendant to put on a defence, no matter ridiculous, is a denial of a defence. In effect, he was denied a right to defend his actions. If he choose to take the stand he would have to take an oath to tell the truth, the hole truth and nothing but the truth. Denying him that right is a denial of due process.

  4. #4
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Men in black robes disallow defenses all the time, they suck when they do that.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189
    Sound like it will be the basis for an appeal.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,156
    Quote Originally Posted by PeterNSteinmetz View Post
    Sound like it will be the basis for an appeal.
    Do you have a suggestion of what the grounds for an appeal might be?
    Last edited by Nightmare; 07-24-2014 at 06:48 PM.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  7. #7
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Location
    Tempe, Arizona
    Posts
    189
    I would suspect the failure to allow presentation of the defense. It is not like that is completely groundless by law. There is a general principle that one might commit a lesser crime to prevent a greater harm. For example, running a stoplight at 3 AM with no traffic to avoid a collision. It seems like the issue should depend on the facts as tried by a jury.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •