CA6: Impeaching def’s trial testimony about the search of his property using his proffer agreement was prejudicial, but harmless

Impeaching defendant’s trial testimony about the search of his property using his proffer agreement was prejudicial, but it was harmless on this record. They could have cross-examined without it. United States v. Grogan, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 2354 (6th Cir. Feb. 3, 2025). [In my experience, any testimony about the conduct of the search isn’t really relevant, unless you can show evidence was planted, and it opens the door for the prosecution to go into things that sure won’t help.]

Probable cause was shown for the warrant here even without defendant’s statement. United States v. Campbell, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19358 (N.D. Okla. Feb. 4, 2025).*

This case involved an anti-doping allegation about the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. The search warrant for defendant’s phone was sufficiently particular as to the crime under investigation to guide the search. United States v. Barrett, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18935 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2025).*

The trial court’s order on impoundment and inventory is reversed for more findings. The impoundment might have been unnecessary because defendant wanted to have the vehicle towed. The unwritten inventory is too nebulous to understand, even with the discussion on bodycam. Huertas v. State, 2025 Ga. App. LEXIS 31 (Feb. 3, 2025).*

This entry was posted in Admissibility of evidence, Inventory, Particularity, Probable cause. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.