E.D.N.Y.: Valid strategic reasons for not using SW affidavit at trial

Defendant claimed perjury at trial because search warrant affidavits had information contrary to the trial testimony. There were good strategic reasons for not putting the affidavit in evidence. “Presumably, in deciding this claim, it is only appropriate to consider evidence that was actually before the jury at trial. For example, although the search warrant applications that Defendants cite in support of this perjury claim were in their possession at trial, those documents were never introduced into evidence. Undoubtedly, Defendants had strategic reasons for not even attempting to admit these search warrant applications, which do not mention the February 2013 meeting, but detail other damaging allegations against Defendants. In any event, for the sake of completeness, the Court has also considered the search warrant applications as if they had been admitted at trial and concludes that they provide no basis to alter the Court’s rejection of Defendants’ perjury claim.” United States v. McPartland, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 222099 (E.D. N.Y. Nov. 27, 2020).*

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

Comments are closed.