Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Criminal Law Blogs -> Fourth Amendment

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

CA7: Unavailable witness does not enable reopening suppression hearing on post-conviction under Stone

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Defendant's claim in a § 2255 post conviction that he did not have access to a critical witness that might show the search and seizure was illegal was not cognizable in a post-conviction proceeding where the defendant had a full and fair opportunity to litigate, absent a claim that the government was responsible for hiding the witness. The deterrent purposes of the exclusionary rule, also discussed in Stone, is not served by enabling the defendant to reopen the suppression hearing after the conviction is affirmed. Brock v. United States, 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 16303 (7th Cir. July 22, 2009): Brock's second argument is that this Court has summarized the opportunity for full and fair litigation of a Fourth Amendment claim by stating that it "guarantees the right to present one's case, but it does not guarantee a correct result...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on July 26, 2009 (boomark / email).