W.D.Pa.: Defense counsel’s decisions about motions to suppress are strategic under Strickland

In a post-conviction petition, defense counsel’s decisions about motions to suppress are strategic for Strickland purposes. Bagley v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31040 (W.D. Pa. Feb. 27, 2019).

Defendant’s objection to the R&R for his lack of standing is overruled. He was a mere passenger, and nothing was put forward by him showing standing. United States v. Corona, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 29129 (D. S.D. Feb. 25, 2019).*

Defendant’s motion to reconsider is denied. The evidence that he suggests false statements in the affidavit for search warrant was already presented. This is essentially treated as a rehash of the same argument. Because there was clearly probable cause, the entire good faith exception argument is moot. United States v. Thornton, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31216 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 27, 2019).*

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

Comments are closed.