D.Haw.: USMJ’s prior civil case involving defendant didn’t make him not “neutral and detached”

The USMJ was involved in a prior qui tam civil case by defendant. Defendant in a later criminal case argues that the USMJ should have been disqualified from considering a search warrant affidavit for her property that led to the indictment. Defendant doesn’t allege enough to force a recusal. What knowledge the USMJ had was learned in official proceedings. The court doesn’t mention that the USMJ was “neutral and detached,” but that’s what it means. United States v. Sullivan, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2911 (D. Haw. Jan. 6, 2020).

2255 petitioner’s search claim is barred by Stone v. Powell. Even if not, it’s procedurally defaulted. Holland v. United States, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2859 (W.D. Tenn. Jan. 8, 2020).*

Defendant while giving a Mirandized statement agreed to a search of her cell phone, and it wasn’t limited in scope. United States v. Aquino-Bustos, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 224364 (N.D. Ga. Nov. 21, 2019),* adopted, 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2903 (N.D. Ga. Jan. 7, 2020).*

This entry was posted in Abstention, Consent, Neutral and detached magistrate. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.