State prosecutors aren\u2019t necessarily obliged to give over information on federal officers present at a state search considering they have no control over them and their testimony may be hard fought via Touhy letters and they may have nothing additional to add. People v. Adams, 2025 NY Slip Op 25019, 2025 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 409 (Erie Co. Jan. 28, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Where a motion to suppress would not have succeeded, defense counsel can be ineffective for not moving to suppress. McGrier v. United States, 2024 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 238619 (S.D. W.Va. Dec. 17, 2024),* adopted, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13915 (S.D. W.Va. Jan. 27, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective on his parole search question. \u201cFortson cannot establish either prong of the Strickland standard because had prior counsel made this argument at the hearing, it would have failed.\u201d United States v. Fortson, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15520 (N.D. Ohio Jan. 29, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
State prosecutors aren\u2019t necessarily obliged to give over information on federal officers present at a state search considering they have no control over them and their testimony may be hard fought via Touhy letters and they may have nothing additional … Continue reading