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

Criminal Law

: Fourth Amendment

D.R.I. Failure to say in a § 2255 how defendant would have prevailed means it is denied

By John Wesley Hall, Jr.

Defendant’s “reference [in his § 2255] to his trial counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress items seized in a search (presumably referring to a search of his apartment made with his consent) is devoid of discussion as to why such a motion would have succeeded.” Thompson v. United States, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58805 (D. R.I. June 10, 2010).* This was a consent after a knock-and-talk, and defendant’s authorities were all cases involving apparent coercion during the talk. United States v. Perez-Saavedra, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 59217 (N.D. Iowa June 15, 2010).* Defense counsel withdrew his motion to suppress before defendant’s guilty plea to interstate travel for sex with a minor. This was a reasonable tactical choice after defense counsel learned that the defendant was on a jail recording talking to her to change her story...continue to full post

Full post as published by Fourth Amendment on June 17, 2010 (boomark / email).