M.D.Fla.: Even if def counsel filed and won suppression motion, would outcome of case be different?

On a search and seizure IAC claim, too, only the Strickland prejudice prong needs to be considered. Even if the evidence were suppressed, would the jury have still convicted? If yes, then no prejudice. Pittman v. United States, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 132164 (M.D.Fla. Sept. 27, 2016):

Although Strickland presents a two-pronged inquiry, courts should dispose of ineffectiveness claims on the prejudice prong where it is easier to do so. Moore v. Hardee, 723 F.3d 488, 500 (4th Cir. 2013) (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 697).

This is such a case. To succeed on the prejudice prong, Pittman must demonstrate a reasonable probability that (a) the court would have suppressed the contested evidence and (b) without the evidence, the jury would not have concluded that he used a firearm to commit the two bank robberies.

Here, it is far from clear that Pittman can demonstrate a reasonable probability that the evidence would have been suppressed. However, even if the court assumes (without deciding) that the bag’s contents would have been suppressed, Pittman has failed to carry his burden of showing a reasonable probability that the jury would not have otherwise convicted him of the bank robberies.