D.Md.: Even if defense counsel had pursued a motion to suppress and won, the proof was so strong there was no Strickland prejudice

Even if defendant on post-conviction could have shown that a motion to suppress would have been granted if made, he can’t show prejudice because the proof at trial showed he almost certainly would have been convicted even without that evidence. Gill v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103227 (D. Md. June 12, 2020).

Where the defendant didn’t cooperate with the officer when he came to the car window, there wasn’t consent. “Officer Esterly had reasonable suspicion (based upon his observation and smell of marijuana, George’s furtive movements [reaching under seat when told to put his hands on the dash], and George’s flight) at the moment George was detained.” United States v. Bernell, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102892 (W.D. La. May 7, 2020), adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 102134 (W.D. La. June 9, 2020).*

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

Comments are closed.