When claiming a witness wasn\u2019t called at a suppression hearing as an ineffective assistance claim, there has to be an offer of proof as to what the witness would have testified to with a showing of how it would affect the outcome. Otherwise, the claim is speculative. Lenhart v. United States, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33552 (6th Cir. Dec. 22, 2025).<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Defendant was a police officer tried and acquitted in state court for the shooting death of Breonna Taylor. Then he was tried federally for a civil rights violation and convicted of violating her Fourth Amendment rights. He gets bail pending appeal. If he succeeds on one issue, he can\u2019t be retried. If on the other, there\u2019s a new trial. There is a strong presumption of detention, but government agrees this is extraordinary. United States v. Hankison, 2025 U.S. App. LEXIS 33314 (6th Cir. Dec. 19, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The proof of connection between defendant and the murder victim was so substantial, including defendant\u2019s DNA practically everywhere, the CSLI doesn\u2019t add much of anything. Tandy v. State, 2025 Ind. App. LEXIS 421 (Dec. 22, 2025).*<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
When claiming a witness wasn\u2019t called at a suppression hearing as an ineffective assistance claim, there has to be an offer of proof as to what the witness would have testified to with a showing of how it would affect … Continue reading