Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging a will defendant wrote saying he\u2019d kill his wife then himself found on his person at the time of arrest. At least inevitable discovery applied because it would have been found in booking inventory. MacKenzie v. Morrison, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 3699 (6th Cir. Feb. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Nexus was shown to defendant\u2019s cell phone because the CI said that it was used to communicate with co-conspirators. United States v. Kelly, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28189 (D. Conn. Feb. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cProbable cause \u2018is not a high bar,\u2019 see Kaley v. United States, 571 U.S. 350, 338 (2014), and it has been met here. This is all the Constitution requires. The black Jaguar was tied to drug trafficking, and as far as the agents knew at the time of his arrest, Derrick Baldwin (and not Jarman Hargrove) owned it. Defense counsel’s suggestion notwithstanding, agents had sufficient probable cause to detain Mr. Baldwin, even if they didn’t witness him engage in suspicious hand-to-hand transactions at various gas stations or find his fingerprints on items recovered from the trash pull.\u201d United States v. Baldwin, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28382 (S.D. Ohio Feb. 18, 2025).*<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Defense counsel wasn\u2019t ineffective for not challenging a will defendant wrote saying he\u2019d kill his wife then himself found on his person at the time of arrest. At least inevitable discovery applied because it would have been found in booking … Continue reading