Squeezing a baggie of suspected marijuana to sense its feel was not unreasonable, if that is part of defendant\u2019s argument, which isn\u2019t obvious. It was at arms length when seized, and its appearance was marijuana anyway. United States v. Barnes, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8519 n.2 (E.D.Mich. Jan. 23, 2017).<\/p>\n
Defendant did not show that defense counsel was ineffective for not calling an expert witness to more specifically define where defendant was at the time of the GPS coordinates in evidence when there was no offer of proof as to what that would prove or that it would change the outcome and have made him not plead guilty. \u201cCounsel’s decision not to call an expert to testify that one could access email without searching a particular computer was within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. In particular, counsel could reasonably expect that the Court understood this fact and that her argument that the warrant was overbroad adequately raised this issue. Counsel’s failure to call an expert on the ability to remotely access email was not deficient.\u201d United States v. Ellis, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7064 (D.Kan. Jan. 18, 2017).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Squeezing a baggie of suspected marijuana to sense its feel was not unreasonable, if that is part of defendant\u2019s argument, which isn\u2019t obvious. It was at arms length when seized, and its appearance was marijuana anyway. United States v. Barnes, … Continue reading