The right to testify at a trial doesn\u2019t also mean that a defendant has a constitutional right to testify at a suppression hearing. Here, defendant wasn\u2019t even present at the suppression hearing. The court finds that defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for proceeding without him. Also, defense counsel was not ineffective for admitting that defendant consented to the search. Instead, he did challenge consent. Witten v. United States, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37719 (S.D. Fla. Mar. 8, 2019).<\/p>\n
\u201cSince the information in the application was not stale and the citizen informant was reliable, we find \u2018a person of reasonable prudence would believe a crime was committed on the premises to be searched or evidence of a crime could be located there.\u2019\u201d State v. Sallis<\/a>, 2019 Iowa App. LEXIS 272 (Mar. 6, 2019).* <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" The right to testify at a trial doesn\u2019t also mean that a defendant has a constitutional right to testify at a suppression hearing. Here, defendant wasn\u2019t even present at the suppression hearing. The court finds that defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective … Continue reading