OH5, D.Minn.: Not calling additional witnesses at suppression hearing didn’t change outcome

There was reasonable suspicion for the stop here, and defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not calling another witness that wouldn’t have changed the outcome. State v. Ware, 2023-Ohio-1807 (5th Dist. May 30, 2023).*

In a tax warrant case, defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not calling certain witnesses to controvert the search. Defendant retained progressively more experienced lawyers who chose not to call them, too. United States v. Flynn, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 94219 (D. Minn. May 31, 2023).*

The state law on supervision searches requires a minimal level of justification. The officer’s suspicion defendant might have child porn on the computer led him to ask whether there were pictures of naked children on it. His answer, “There might be.” was enough. Day v. State, 2023 Ga. App. LEXIS 238 (May 31, 2023).*

Six day delay in executing a search warrant on an ongoing drug operation didn’t make it stale. United States v. Jackson, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 13389 (4th Cir. May 31, 2023).*

This entry was posted in Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search, Suppression hearings, Warrant execution. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.