Opinion ID: 4556238
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Proceedings on Direct Appeal

Text: The Michigan Court of Appeals affirmed Cooper’s judgment of conviction. (Opinion, R. 5.18, Page ID 877.) The court held that Cooper had not “unequivocal[ly] and unambiguous[ly] invoke[ed] [] his right to remain silent, during his first custodial interview on March 2, 2010,” (id., Page ID 878), but that he had properly invoked the right with respect to his second custodial interview on March 2, 2010. However, the appellate court concluded that even if the trial court had committed error in admitting Cooper’s statements from the second custodial interview, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. (Id., Page ID 879). The court also rejected Cooper’s argument that his interview statements had been made involuntarily. (Id., Page ID 881.) No. 18-1391 Cooper v. Chapman Page 11 Finally, the court ruled that Cooper had waived any challenge to the admission of his statements from the third custodial interview on March 3, 2010 under Michigan’s invited-error doctrine. Namely, the court concluded that defense counsel had invited admission of the March 3 interview by asking questions that implicated the interview during his cross-examination of Detective Wehby, and then subsequently moving to admit the interview transcript and play all of the taped interviews for the jury. (Id., Page ID 880-81). Because of its ruling on Cooper’s procedural default, the court declined to reach the merits of Cooper’s claim that the statements from the third custodial interview were admitted in violation of his right to remain silent. (Id.) Thereafter, the Michigan Supreme Court denied Cooper’s motion for leave to appeal. (Order, R. 5.20, Page ID 1337.)