NC: Def’s bloody shirt seized as evidence from ER didn’t need a SW to test for DNA

Defendant was a suspect in a shooting incident. At the ER, his bloody shirt was collected as evidence. A separate search warrant wasn’t required to test the DNA on it. State v. Howze, 2026 N.C. App. LEXIS 652 (Aug. 5, 2026).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not objecting during voir dire to mention of informant recorded statements of the accused because there was no basis to exclude them. United States v. Hossain, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175221 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 6, 2026).*

Whether the first search warrant was valid is a moot point because nothing from it is being used in the case. [It was suspect, but moot.] The second search of defendant’s store for counterfeit goods was by consent. United States v. Vasquez-Yax, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 175645 (W.D.N.C. June 17, 2026),* adopted, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174947 (W.D. N.C. Aug. 6, 2026).*

This entry was posted in Consent, DNA, Informant hearsay. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.