The USMJ was involved in a prior qui tam civil case by defendant. Defendant in a later criminal case argues that the USMJ should have been disqualified from considering a search warrant affidavit for her property that led to the indictment. Defendant doesn\u2019t allege enough to force a recusal. What knowledge the USMJ had was learned in official proceedings. The court doesn’t mention that the USMJ was “neutral and detached,” but that’s what it means. United States v. Sullivan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2911 (D. Haw. Jan. 6, 2020). <\/p>\n
2255 petitioner\u2019s search claim is barred by Stone v. Powell. Even if not, it\u2019s procedurally defaulted. Holland v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2859 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 8, 2020).*<\/p>\n
Defendant while giving a Mirandized statement agreed to a search of her cell phone, and it wasn\u2019t limited in scope. United States v. Aquino-Bustos, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224364 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2019),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2903 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 7, 2020).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The USMJ was involved in a prior qui tam civil case by defendant. Defendant in a later criminal case argues that the USMJ should have been disqualified from considering a search warrant affidavit for her property that led to the … Continue reading