CA6: New evidence of possible Franks violation for successor habeas not adequate to possibly alter outcome

2255 petitioner’s successor petition claims newly discovered evidence from an FOIA response that casts doubt on the affidavit for the search warrant obtained in 2011. “So Duval has not shown that the search warrant affidavit contained a false statement. Nor has he shown that the absence of any DEA reports for May 2011 would be sufficient to establish—by clear and convincing evidence—that no reasonable factfinder would have found him guilty. 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h)(1).” In re Duval, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 24833 (6th Cir. Oct. 1, 2024).*

There is statutory exclusionary rule for this taillight statute, but the stop wasn’t strictly for that, so it doesn’t apply. Flores v. Commonwealth, 2024 Va. App. LEXIS 566 (Oct. 1, 2024).*

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective on this search claim because it lacked merit. Hardy v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178368 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2024).*

When defendant was ordered out of the car, they didn’t know he was a convicted felon. Still, they could do that under Mimms. United States v. Player, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178364 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 1, 2024).*

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

Comments are closed.