Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging execution of the search warrant without knocking and announcing. First, the homeowner wasn\u2019t there; he was in the hospital. Second, Hudson doesn\u2019t permit that challenge under the exclusionary rule. Brown v. Clarke, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84913 (W.D.Va. May 11, 2022).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s pretrial Franks challenge failed. Post-trial: \u201cThe defendant’s contention that certain trial evidence called into question the truthfulness of the affidavit submitted in support of the application for the search warrant is unpreserved for appellate review.\u201d People v. Baker<\/a>, 2022 NY Slip Op 03122, 2022 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3063 (2d Dept. May 11, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n Third-party consent to enter the premises where defendant was arrested was valid. His jail recordings were not fruit of the poisonous tree. United States v. Good Voice, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84658 (D.S.D. May 9, 2022).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n The master affidavit here had some mistakes, but they weren\u2019t reckless or intentional thus undermining the probable cause. United States v. Williams, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 84712 (M.D.Pa. May 10, 2022).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging execution of the search warrant without knocking and announcing. First, the homeowner wasn\u2019t there; he was in the hospital. Second, Hudson doesn\u2019t permit that challenge under the exclusionary rule. Brown v. Clarke, 2022 … Continue reading