N.D.Cal.: Failure to mention denial of a TRO in civil litigation over similar issue material enough to get Franks hearing

The fact a TRO had been denied in a civil case involving some of the same facts was potentially material under Franks, and he gets a Franks hearing. Also, defendants have no standing in the search of a co-conspirator’s home. United States v. Chen, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210476 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2020).

Defendant asserts his Fourth Amendment claim again in his 2254 habeas petition, and it’s barred under Stone v. Powell. [Essentially, this is just an effort to relitigate.] Hammond v. Gastelo, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 210444 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 10, 2020).*

Defendant pled guilty but now claims that defense counsel didn’t properly advise him about potential Fourth Amendment claims. The plea was still voluntary and waives his Fourth Amendment claims. State v. Perez, 2020 Del. Super. LEXIS 2881 (Nov. 2, 2020).

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.