The Federal Defender was not ineffective for not appealing defendant suppression hearing. \u201cSimply put, the suppression argument was a clear loser.\u201d United States v. Forrest, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 115227 (D. Neb. October 5, 2011):<\/p>\n
Moreover, defense counsel like Vanderslice do not have a constitutional duty to raise on appeal every nonfrivolous issue requested by the defendant. See, e.g., Jones v. Barnes, 463 U.S. 745, 751, 103 S. Ct. 3308, 77 L. Ed. 2d 987 (1983) (\u201cExperienced advocates since time beyond memory have emphasized the importance of winnowing out weaker arguments on appeal and focusing on one central issue if possible ….\u201d) Because the suppression argument was weaker than the critically important sentencing issue, Vanderslice cannot be faulted for failing to raise it even though Vanderslice prudently preserved the search issue in the plea agreement. Vanderslice did what all good appellate advocates do; that is, he focused on what was most likely to attract careful appellate attention.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Defense counsel was not ineffective in handling defendant\u2019s suppression motion. It was appealed on the merits, and arguing it a different way would not have helped him. United States v. Chester, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 114740 (D. Nev. October 4, 2011).*<\/p>\n
Defendant was not just a mere bystander like in Ybarra; there was specific information about others involved in the crime, and the defendant matched the description. United States v. McCauley<\/a>, 659 F.3d 645 (7th Cir. 2011).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading