RI: Trial stipulation DNA on blanket was def’s obviates search claim

Defendant wasn’t prejudiced by defense counsel not moving to suppress DNA off a blanket found on a road when he’d stipulated to it being his DNA. [There’s also an obvious abandonment issue not even mentioned.] Tassone v. State, 2026 R.I. LEXIS 36 (Mar. 19, 2026).* (Defendant’s statement: “I stopped and threw the blanket and the shovel off the side of the road” where police found it. The shovel was used as a weapon with the victim on the blanket, and he apparently buried her still alive.)

“Morton’s counsel raised many of the same [suppression] arguments that Morton now contends he should have raised in the first place, and the circuit court rejected those arguments by denying the motion to suppress.” Then defendant pled guilty. No IAC. Morton v. Walters, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59554 (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2026).*

2254 petitioner’s search claim was litigated in state court and is barred by Stone; Harris v. Dotson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59481 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2026); and one exhaustively litigated is Smith v. Clement, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59510 (D. Idaho Mar. 19, 2026).

On nexus, the place searched was described as two miles from defendant’s house, and it was, in fact defendant’s property. United States v. Reed, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59531 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, DNA, Ineffective assistance, Issue preclusion, Nexus. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.