TX1: Issuing magistrate could conclude 11:59 am really meant 11:59 pm

When the magistrate read the search warrant for a blood draw, the magistrate was authorized to conclude that 11:59 am should have been pm instead, so the warrant was not stale. Somoza v. State, 2015 Tex. App. LEXIS 12037 (Tex. App. – Houston (1st Dist.) Nov. 24, 2015).

USDJ did not have to recuse from hearing defendant’s suppression motion because of the coincidence that she previously encountered the defendant when a state court judge. United States v. Coleman, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 157682 (S.D. Ind. Nov. 23, 2015).

This entry was posted in Burden of proof. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.