CA10: “[N]o exclusionary rule for evidence gained through … entrapment”

“[T]here is no exclusionary rule for evidence gained through conduct later deemed to be entrapment.” United States v. Christian, 754 Fed. Appx. 747, 750 (10th Cir. 2018). United States v. Christian, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 12255 (10th Cir. May 6, 2022) (denying CoA).

Defense counsel wasn’t ineffective for not filing a Franks motion that would have failed. Taking the Franks claim at face value, probable cause remains without the information. United States v. Turner, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 82066 (E.D.Va. May 4, 2022).*

The overseizure here came up as a Brady issue. “The Chandrasekaran search warrant authorized the seizure only of data from the relevant time period of [TEXT REDACTED BY THE COURT]. This was the 772GB. The remainder of the 21TB thus fell outside the scope of the warrant, and the Government was not authorized to seize it, much less retain it, review it, or offer it up to Holmes and Balwani in April 2021 or March 2022. Id. … The Government’s commitment to fulfilling its discovery obligations is commendable, but it appears that commitment also blinded the Government to the threshold question of whether it should—or even could—have properly exercised possession, custody, or control over the non-responsive 21TB in the first place.” United States v. Balwani, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 80997 (N.D.Cal. Apr. 7, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Exclusionary rule, Franks doctrine, Overseizure. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.