W.D.Va.: Not IAC to logically choose 4A arguments

Trial counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing his desired defendant’s personal Franks issue when lack of probable cause was a better issue. He also wasn’t ineffective for not arguing that GPS tracking across state lines was unreasonable. Appellate counsel wasn’t ineffective for not arguing a particular search case that was clearly distinguishable. United States v. Jordan, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 89189 (W.D. Va. May 7, 2025). As to trial counsel:

In addition, as discussed above, Nagy challenged Flippin’s affidavits on the basis that they did not contain sufficient facts to support a finding of probable cause to issue the search warrants. That Nagy chose a different strategy than the one preferred by Jordan does not mean that he provided ineffective assistance. Counsel provides reasonably effective assistance when he demonstrates legal competence, does relevant research, and raises important issues. Carthorne, 878 F.3d 458 at 465 (citing Strickland, 466 U.S. at 687-90). Nagy did that in this case when he argued that the affidavits lacked probable cause. See Motion to Suppress Number 2, ECF No. 174; Hr’g Tr., ECF No. 436 at 64-100. “Attorneys need not raise every possible claim to meet the constitutional standard of effectiveness. They are permitted to set priorities, determine trial strategy, and press those claims with the greatest chances of success.” United States v. Mason, 774 F.3d 824, 828 (4th Cir. 2014). Nagy’s decision to not request a Franks hearing but to challenge the legal sufficiency of the affidavits was based on his analysis of the facts of Jordan’s case and relevant law and was not ineffective assistance. Jordan cannot make out a claim of ineffective assistance based on Nagy’s decision to not seek a Franks hearing and this claim is DISMISSED.

This entry was posted in GPS / Tracking Data, Ineffective assistance, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.