D.N.J.: What witnesses to call at a suppression hearing is strategic call under Strickland

Defendant wasn’t prejudiced by not calling his codefendant wife at the suppression hearing. Her declaration was already before the court, and nothing more could be added. What witnesses to call, even in a suppression hearing, is a Strickland strategic decision. Durante v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6865 (D.N.J. Jan. 13, 2020).

“Both warrants were based on detailed affidavits that clearly described the crimes in question, the places to be searched, and the items to be seized. … Accordingly, the evidence seized as a result of the warrants was admissible under the good faith exception, and we conclude that the district court did not err when it denied Carpenter’s motion to suppress.” [It suggests there was probable cause anyway, but decides on good faith.] United States v. Bursey, 2020 U.S. App. LEXIS 1350 (2d Cir. Jan. 13, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Good faith exception, Ineffective assistance, Suppression hearings. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.