Defendant wasn\u2019t prejudiced by defense counsel not moving to suppress DNA off a blanket found on a road when he\u2019d stipulated to it being his DNA. [There\u2019s also an obvious abandonment issue not even mentioned.] Tassone v. State, 2026 R.I. LEXIS 36 (Mar. 19, 2026).* (Defendant\u2019s statement: \u201cI stopped and threw the blanket and the shovel off the side of the road\u201d where police found it. The shovel was used as a weapon with the victim on the blanket, and he apparently buried her still alive.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cMorton’s counsel raised many of the same [suppression] arguments that Morton now contends he should have raised in the first place, and the circuit court rejected those arguments by denying the motion to suppress.\u201d Then defendant pled guilty. No IAC. Morton v. Walters, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59554 (E.D. Va. Mar. 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
2254 petitioner\u2019s search claim was litigated in state court and is barred by Stone; Harris v. Dotson, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59481 (W.D. Va. Mar. 19, 2026); and one exhaustively litigated is Smith v. Clement, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59510 (D. Idaho Mar. 19, 2026).<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n On nexus, the place searched was described as two miles from defendant\u2019s house, and it was, in fact defendant\u2019s property. United States v. Reed, 2026 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59531 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 20, 2026).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Defendant wasn\u2019t prejudiced by defense counsel not moving to suppress DNA off a blanket found on a road when he\u2019d stipulated to it being his DNA. [There\u2019s also an obvious abandonment issue not even mentioned.] Tassone v. State, 2026 R.I. … Continue reading