Defense counsel’s decision not to reopen suppression hearing was strategic under Strickland after consulting with a private investigator about the case. Brown v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49308 (D. Me. June 8, 2009)*:<\/p>\n
I am confident that had counsel notified the court and\/or moved to reopen the suppression hearing based on the information gleaned from the private investigator he would have been firmly rebuffed; quibbling with the court about the credibility of a witness at the suppression hearing with less than one month to go until trial would not have been a successful tactic. “Counsel is not required to waste the court’s time with futile or frivolous motions.” United States v. Wright, 573 F.2d 681, 684 (1st Cir. 1978); see also United State v. Hart, 933 F.2d 80, 83 (1st Cir. 1991) (“[S]everal First Circuit cases have upheld counsel’s right to ignore frivolous claims pressed by clients.”).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defendant was free to leave when he consented, and the court credits the officer’s testimony that consent was voluntary. United States v. Strong, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49283 (E.D. Mich. June 11, 2009).*<\/p>\n
Defendant’s IAC claim defendant failed to move to dismiss for an illegal arrest under Payton<\/a> “falls flat on its face” because defendant’s arrest was in a social club. The gun was found in a valid search incident under Chimel<\/a>. Lee v. United States, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 49253 (W.D. Mich. June 11, 2009).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading