D.Idaho: Broad conclusory motions to suppress should be summarily denied

Broad conclusory motions to suppress should be summarily denied. “The Government and the Court had no warning that Munguia-Lopez was going to challenge his own stop at the hearing. This Court does not look favorably on counsel filing motions with the broadest possible conclusory language that counsel later seeks to flesh out in court. Accordingly, the Court denied Munguia-Lopez’s request to challenge his own stop during the hearing but will allow Munguia-Lopez a grace period to file a Motion to Suppress. If Munguia-Lopez desires to file his own Motion to Suppress regarding any Fourth Amendment violations regarding his own traffic stop, he must do so within fourteen days of the issuance of this order.” And that order denies the co-defendants’ motions to suppress. United States v. Munguia-Lopez, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90635 (D.Idaho May 18, 2022).

A witness’s statement that a search was by consent when it wasn’t is for cross-examination at trial. “Wanless believes that the witness’s statement misled the jury about the source of the ledger and financial documents. That the witness misstated the authority for the search, however, does not amount to prosecutorial misconduct or otherwise justify a new trial. If the nature of the authority for the search was relevant to the defense, then it was a proper subject for cross-examination.” United States v. Unpradit, 2022 U.S. App. LEXIS 13648 (8th Cir. May 20, 2022).*

This entry was posted in Burden of pleading. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.