CA2: That a DNA sample was potentially excludable didn’t need to be disclosed in SW affidavit

There were two DNA samples here. The fact the second was potentially subject to suppression didn’t need to be disclosed in the affidavit for more testing. United States v. Green, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 25836 (2d Cir. Oct. 15, 2024).

Parole officers had detailed information that defendant was leaving his county and storing criminal evidence in another one. They confirmed his movements with his GPS and investigation. Their parole search revealed a key to a storage unit that they got a warrant for. This was all justified and reasonable. United States v. Copper, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185865 (E.D. Pa. Oct. 11, 2024).*

Defendant’s post-conviction ineffective assistance of counsel claim that defense counsel didn’t better exploit an alleged mistake as to dates and times isn’t shown to be prejudicial to him at trial. Austin v. State, 2024 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 448 (Oct. 11, 2024).*

This entry was posted in Franks doctrine, Ineffective assistance, Probation / Parole search. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.