CA6: Changing counsel after suppression hearing not a ground to reopen the suppression hearing

Getting a new attorney who saw the suppression issue differently is not a ground to reopen the suppression hearing. Defendant may be able to show it if he alleges and attempts to show IAC in the suppression hearing. Here, defendant was found to have consented. United States v. Holland, 522 Fed. Appx. 265 (6th Cir. 2013):

Holland cannot meet this standard. He argues that his acquisition of new defense counsel after the suppression hearing is a reasonable basis for reopening the record. Clearly, Holland’s first attorney inexplicably failed to raise the consent issue at the suppression hearing. But as in Carter, which likewise upheld a court’s decision not to reopen a suppression hearing, Holland’s renewed suppression motion, filed by his new attorney, did not argue that his previous attorney was incompetent. See Carter, 374 F.3d at 406. Though prior counsel’s poor performance could in some circumstances satisfy the moving party’s threshold showing, the district court should at least be presented with the argument when asked to reconsider an order denying suppression.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.