Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Cooper v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals
512 A.2d 1002 (1986)


Facts

Leon Cooper (defendant) and his brother Robert Parker lived with their mother, Alice Cooper. After Parker had returned home from unexpectedly being away for 10 days, the two brothers began arguing about where Parker had gone. The argument escalated and Parker hit Cooper in the head with a small radio. Mrs. Cooper ran upstairs to call for help when she heard a “pop.” She went back downstairs and saw Parker lying on the floor. Cooper admitted to shooting him and Parker subsequently died. Cooper was charged with voluntary manslaughter while armed and carrying a pistol without a license. At trial, Cooper’s counsel objected to the trial court giving the standard jury instruction when a defendant claims self-defense. That instruction, 5.16B, states in part: “[i]f the defendant could have safely retreated but did not do so, his failure to retreat is a circumstance which you may consider together with all the other circumstances in determining whether he went further in repelling the danger, real or apparent, then he was justified in doing so under the circumstances. Before a person can avail himself [of]...self-defense against a charge of homicide, he must do everything in his power, consistent with his own safety, to avoid the danger and avoid the necessity of taking life..If the defendant actually believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm, and that deadly force was necessary to repel such danger, he was not required to retreat...He was entitled to stand his ground and use such force as was reasonably necessary under the circumstances to save his life or protect himself from serious bodily harm.” The trial court overruled Cooper’s objection to the instruction and he was convicted. Cooper appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Belson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 200,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.