D.Nev.: When the govt says it won’t use the product of the search at trial, the motion to suppress is moot, yet def still argues it

The government responded to the initial motion to suppress by saying it wouldn’t use the evidence obtained in the search. The court held the motion was then moot. Defendant pro se then claimed that meant that the officer must have perjured himself to get the search warrant in the first place. The government reiterates it’s not using the evidence, and the motion remains moot. United States v. James, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122513 (D. Nev. July 23, 2018).*

2255 petitioner’s claims involving his arrest and the related search were decided on the merits against him before conviction. They can’t be raised again. Sampson v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122243 (D. Md. July 23, 2018).*

2255 petitioner lost in the district court on claims including not getting a Franks hearing. The court of appeals denies a CoA. Clark v. United States, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 20358 (6th Cir. July 20, 2018).*

Defendant’s IAC claim is conclusory and fails. United States v. Jones, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122094 (E.D. Mich. July 23, 2018).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.