D.N.M.: There was at least circumstantial evidence defs’ DNA would be found in evidence to justify SW for it

There was sufficient probable cause defendants were involved in a robbery and could be linked to evidence in the case for DNA samples to be taken from them by search warrants. “Although the Search Warrant lacks direct evidence that the United States will find testable DNA on the items, it contains circumstantial evidence to that effect.” United States v. Sedillo, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184274 (D. N.M. Nov. 7, 2017).

“In the present case, Plaintiff raises various constitutional claims related to the prosecution and trial arising out of his 2009 arrest, including ineffective assistance of counsel and denial of due process, a fair trial, and the Confrontation Clause. A ruling by the Court that Defendants Fulton County Judicial System, Commonwealth’s Attorney Stacy, or any other Defendant violated his constitutional rights during the prosecution leading to his criminal conviction would necessarily render that conviction invalid.” It is thus barred by Heck v. Humphrey. Russell v. First Baptist Church, Fulton, Ky., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 183930 (W.D. Ky. Nov. 7, 2017).*

This entry was posted in § 1983 / Bivens, DNA, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.