\u201cA review of the discovery produced by the Government leads the Court to the conclusion that Sheehan’s counsel’s decision not to file a motion to suppress was well within \u2018the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.\u2019 Strickland at 689. Sheehan seems to think that the confidential informant mentioned in search warrants proved to be the irreplaceable lynch pin to the Government’s case. Even accepting as true Sheehan’s assertions that he never spoke about drugs with the informant, it is clear from the record that multiple people had previously told law enforcement about Sheehan’s trips to Salt Lake City for drugs. It is also evident that law enforcement knew of various activities and associates of Sheehan and his co-defendant son going back years, knowledge sufficient to obtain search warrants and pen registers. A review of this discovery by Holton would have led to a reasonable determination that a motion to suppress would be futile. Holton was not ineffective by not filing that motion. In addition, as the record shows that there were no grounds for suppression \u2026.\u201d United States v. Sheehan, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198673 (D.Mont. Oct. 14, 2021).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant\u2019s ineffective assistance of counsel was aimed at trial counsel. The missed Fourth Amendment claim was litigated by a different lawyer whose work wasn\u2019t questioned. CoA denied. United States v. Sheehan, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 198673 (D.Mont. Oct. 14, 2021).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
\u201cA review of the discovery produced by the Government leads the Court to the conclusion that Sheehan’s counsel’s decision not to file a motion to suppress was well within \u2018the wide range of reasonable professional assistance.\u2019 Strickland at 689. Sheehan … Continue reading