CT: Defense counsel not ineffective for not calling def as witness at suppression hearing

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not calling defendant to testify at the suppression hearing to avoid potential further admissions of guilt [What about Simmons v. United States and its “immunity”?], and defense counsel was confident standing was shown. Moreover, the trial court found defense counsel credible that defendant did not want to testify. Houghtaling v. Comm’r of Corr., 2021 Conn. App. LEXIS 81 (Mar. 16, 2021). Caution: If the issue is standing, it might be necessary to call the defendant to establish it.

Defendant had guest standing to object to the government’s search of the premises, but the householder consented. United States v. Thompson, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 47168 (W.D. La. Feb. 2, 2021).*

The court finds Franks applies to alleged non-existent warrants, but defendant’s offer of proof fails anyway. United States v. Dixon, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46844 (E.D. Ky. Feb. 12, 2021).*

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

Comments are closed.