Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not calling a \u201chotel maid\u201d who found defendant\u2019s gun at the suppression hearing that led to his ACCA sentence. He doesn\u2019t show that she would have changed the outcome. The private search issue was litigated on the direct appeal. Allen v. United States, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42194 (M.D. Fla. Mar. 10, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201c[W]e find that the court properly denied defendant’s motion to controvert the search warrant because the no-knock provision was authorized based on sufficient information supporting the conclusion that defendant might be present with immediate access to firearms when the search warrant was executed.\u201d People v. McCray, 2025 NY Slip Op 01324 (1st Dept. Mar. 11, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The claimant\u2019s claim was properly struck for refusal to answer interrogatories about where the money seized came from. United States v. $1,106,775.00 in United States Currency, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 5598 (9th Cir. Mar. 11, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not calling a \u201chotel maid\u201d who found defendant\u2019s gun at the suppression hearing that led to his ACCA sentence. He doesn\u2019t show that she would have changed the outcome. The private search issue was litigated … Continue reading