Petitioner alleged enough to get a hearing on his 2255 that defense counsel didn\u2019t call a material witness at the suppression hearing that would have created a credibility dispute with the officers as to the nature of the entry. Defense counsel claimed he was never told of the witness; petitioner said that he did. A hearing will be scheduled to resolve the credibility issue. Hill v. United States, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 110705 (D. Md. July 3, 2018).*<\/p>\n
Defendant counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not moving to suppress defendant\u2019s blood search because there were exigent circumstances under Birchfield, and no motion to suppress would have been granted. State v. Dalton<\/a>, 2018 WI 85, 2018 Wisc. LEXIS 311 (July 3, 2018).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Petitioner alleged enough to get a hearing on his 2255 that defense counsel didn\u2019t call a material witness at the suppression hearing that would have created a credibility dispute with the officers as to the nature of the entry. Defense … Continue reading