· 1/12/1989
United States v. Carlton Cameron Cooper
Citations
- 865 F.2d 83
- 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 184
- 1989 WL 922
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- specific intent requirement of Patillo met because evidence was sufficient for jury to conclude the defendant “had a present intention to shoot Gandhi”
- specific intent requirement of Patillo met because evidence was sufficient for jury to conclude the defendant “had a present intention to shoot Gandhi”
- specific intent requirement of Patillo met because evidence was sufficient for jury to conclude the defendant “had a present intention to shoot Gandhi”
- specific intent requirement of Patillo was met in prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 878 because evidence sufficient for jury to determine the defendant “had a present intention to shoot Gandhi”
- specific intent requirement of Patillo was met in prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 878 because evidence sufficient for jury to determine the defendant “had a present intention to shoot Gandhi”
- specific intent requirement of Patillo was met in prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 878 because evidence sufficient for jury to determine the defendant “had a present intention to shoot Gandhi”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Russell, Wilkins, Haynsworth
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.