Not filing a suppression motion was a valid strategic choice discussed on the record at the time it was waived with the USMJ. United States v. Latimore, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91777 (N.D. Ga. May 29, 2014); United States v. Senegal, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91887 (S.D. Tex. July 7, 2014).<\/p>\n
Defense counsel withdrew his motion to suppress because it was hard to win and he feared that it would have improved plea bargaining position. Without post-conviction counsel showing how the motion to suppress would have won, the petition has to be denied. State v. Dillard<\/a>, 2014 Del. Super. LEXIS 317 (June 30, 2014).<\/p>\n Police were investigating a string of burglaries occurring after midnight and surmised that the burglar was using a bicycle. When they found defendant on a bicycle with a lady\u2019s handbag on the handlebars, he acted suspicious, and then he fled. State v. Parks<\/a>, 2014 Del. Super. LEXIS 323 (May 30, 2014).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Not filing a suppression motion was a valid strategic choice discussed on the record at the time it was waived with the USMJ. United States v. Latimore, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 91777 (N.D. Ga. May 29, 2014); United States v. … Continue reading