There is no requirement of an expert in child pornography investigation to be an affiant to provide information about lack of staleness. Also, this was raised for the first time on appeal. State v. Benedict, 2022-Ohio-3600, 2022 Ohio App. LEXIS 3409 (3d Dist. Oct. 11, 2022).
“Schank argues that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to articulate viable arguments and failing to cite relevant case law in the defendant’s motion to suppress. Trial counsel did file a suppression motion, in which she requested an evidentiary hearing and raised several challenges to the validity of the search warrant. Counsel is not ineffective because she did not obtain a favorable ruling. See Hodge v. Haeberlin, 579 F.3d 627, 645 (6th Cir. 2009).” Schank v. United States, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 28144 (6th Cir. Oct. 7, 2022).*
Plaintiff’s complaint that the defendant state judge ordered him to give a DNA sample or be held in contempt, along with claims that he didn’t like the judge’s look at him, was barred by judicial immunity. Williams v. Heekin, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 184796 (S.D. Ohio Oct. 7, 2022).*