In a long super-detailed 2254 habeas, defendant loses on all issues. As to failure to cross-examine even more the searching officer about the details of execution of the search warrant, it was speculative that it would conceivably change the outcome. Beckley v. Hooper, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50823 (E.D. La. Mar. 2, 2023).* (This would be a tenuous argument in any post-conviction. How can it be shown that more cross of the searching officers would ever change the outcome?)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Undisputed facts here showed that additional injuries were from kicking plaintiff when he wasn\u2019t resisting, and that\u2019s excessive force. Soto v. Bautista, No. U.S. App. LEXIS 7160 (5th Cir. Mar. 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
In a Fourth Amendment case filed five years after a fire scene investigation, a changed report led to denial of summary judgment. \u201cWhether Fire Marshal Adams knowingly fabricated the report, even in part, is a question of material fact that is proper for a jury to determine, while weighing the evidence and making any credibility determinations.\u201d Marvaso v. Sanchez, 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50892 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24, 2023).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In a long super-detailed 2254 habeas, defendant loses on all issues. As to failure to cross-examine even more the searching officer about the details of execution of the search warrant, it was speculative that it would conceivably change the outcome. … Continue reading