Category Archives: Ineffective assistance

UT: Defense “counsel was [not] ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress based on an unresolved proposition of law.”

“We cannot conclude that Edgar’s trial counsel was ineffective for not filing a motion to suppress based on an unresolved proposition of law.” State v. Edgar, 2017 UT App 53, 2017 Utah App. LEXIS 53 (March 23, 2017):

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off

D.Minn.: USMJ recommends Playpen warrant be suppressed

R&R recommends Playpen warrant be suppressed. United States v. Carlson, 16-cr-00317-JRT-FLN (D. Minn. March 23, 2017). Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not challenging the particularity of the search warrant in this case. “In our view, the warrant describes the character … Continue reading

Posted in Computer searches, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off

E.D.Tenn.: Defense counsel’s choice of questions during suppression hearing was a strategy choice

Defense counsel’s handling of the suppression hearing and the questions asked was within the strategy choices of counsel. And, even if defendant had a real point here, he can’t show he was prejudiced by anything that wasn’t put into evidence. … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off

DE: Heavy foot traffic between a house there is PC as to doesn’t make the other subject to search

Heavy foot traffic between two homes is not indicative of criminal activity even where there is plenty of probable cause as to one. The other home is not guilty by association. State v. Harding, 2017 Del. Super. LEXIS 113 (March … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Probable cause | Comments Off

N.D.Fla.: No IAC for failure to challenge stop when there was plenty of PC

Officers had a wealth of probable cause from consensually monitored conversations to stop the vehicle defendant was riding in. Therefore, defense counsel couldn’t be ineffective for not making a meritless motion to suppress for lack of PC. United States v. … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off

D.Minn.: Not subpoenaing drug dog’s records not shown to be IAC for lack of prejudice

Defense counsel not subpoenaing the drug dog’s records wasn’t prejudicial where defendant can’t show that the drug dog’s use would be disallowed in the case. “There is no reason to believe that any additional information would have altered the probable … Continue reading

Posted in Dog sniff, Ineffective assistance, Informant hearsay | Comments Off

MA: Impoundment unreasonable in purported “high crime” area that was partly residential with other cars already there; Swiss Army knife not an indicator other weapons in car

Defendant was stopped and arrested in a “high crime” area [which apparently didn’t include stripping cars]. The area was partly residential and other cars were parked on the street, too. That alone didn’t make it reasonable to have to impound … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance, Inventory | Comments Off

MS: No IAC for not pursuing an obvious scrivener’s error; warrant issued same day it was applied for

The search warrant was clearly issued September 4th. The typo “Aug.” was on some of the papers, but reading the entirety of the paperwork, it was obvious this was only a scrivener’s error. The warrant was issued the same day … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off

CA9: States court’s rationale for rejecting 4A claim subject to “unreasonable application” clause of § 2254(d)(1) on habeas

On federal habeas, the state court’s determination that defense counsel was reasonable in not filing a motion to suppress was subject to the “unreasonable application” clause of § 2254(d)(1). The state court’s denials were not an unreasonable application of the … Continue reading

Posted in Ineffective assistance | Comments Off

TN: Def’s post-conviction burden is to show that the motion to suppress would have prevailed

On a post-conviction petition that defense counsel was ineffective, the defense has to put on proof to show that there is some reason to believe that the motion to suppress would have been granted if it had been pursued at … Continue reading

Posted in Burden of proof, Ineffective assistance | Comments Off