M.D.Ala.: A Franks challenge that appears only to be an attempt to examine the CI fails

Defendant’s Franks challenge fails on recklessness. Moreover, it really is just a desire to cross-examine the CI. “Neal’s request for a Franks hearing also falls short for a separate, independent reason: contrary to the requirements of Franks, Neal’s application for a hearing is motivated solely by the desire to cross-examine the CI in order to uncover evidence of a false or reckless disregard for the truth.” United States v. Neal, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19181 (M.D. Ala. Jan. 13, 2023).

Co-defendant couldn’t join in motion to suppress without also stating his or her standing and reasonable expectation of privacy in the place or thing searched. United States v. Czosnyka, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 237699 (W.D.N.Y. Dec. 19, 2022),* adopted, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17720 (W.D.N.Y. Feb. 2, 2023).*

The habeas court considered the merits of petitioner’s claim under the “unreasonable application” test of 2254(d), and concluded he loses on the merits. Stone not even cited. Palacios-Baras v. Warden, Hancock State Prison, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 3082 (11th Cir. Feb. 8, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Standing, Unreasonable application / § 2254(d). Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.