2255 petitioner\u2019s co-defendant prevailed on a motion to suppress a search, and petitioner\u2019s trial counsel didn\u2019t file one because it was apparent there wasn\u2019t standing. Based on the petitioner\u2019s statements to counsel, it was reasonable to conclude that there was no standing, and it was a reasonable trial strategy to distance himself from the premises at trial. Nance v. United States, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 135300 (W.D. Tenn. September 23, 2013):<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Finally, it was not an unreasonable strategic decision to forego the filing of a motion to suppress and, instead, to try the case with a strategy of distancing Nance from 228 Shelby. Viewed in hindsight, that strategy was partially unsuccessful, as Nance was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. \u00a7 922(g). Nance was acquitted of the drug-trafficking charge arising from the crack cocaine in McPhearson’s pocket and of the \u00a7 924(c) charge. However, it is important to recall that this Court’s decision on McPhearson’s suppression motion did not issue until three days before Nance’s trial, and the decision of the Court of Appeals affirming that decision was issued in 2006, after Nance had been tried and convicted. The decision on the suppression motion, and on whether the police were entitled to rely in good faith on the affidavit of probable cause, presented close questions, as demonstrated by the dissent in the Sixth Circuit on the Government’s appeal of the decision on McPhearson’s suppression motion. It was not clear, at the time of trial, that even McPhearson would ultimately prevail on the motion to suppress.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
b2evALnk.b2WPAutP Continue reading