6 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. M.D.Fla.: IAC search claim, even if successful, wouldn’t undermine conspiracy conviction

    Law Offices of John Wesley HallJohn Wesley HallSeptember 28, 2017

    United States v. Aybar, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 155112 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 22, 2017):Also, Aybar fails to explain why a successful motion to suppress the North Carolina stop, which was conducted by officers not participating in the Florida undercover investigation, would justify an acquittal on the conspiracy charge. Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986) (holding that a defendant must prove both that the underlying Fourth Amendment claim was meritorious and a reasonable probability of a more favorable verdict absent the suppressible evidence). Aybar’s failure to establish prejudice precludes relief on this ground of ineffective assistance of counsel.

  2. Steven R. Rann v. Atchison, 7th Cir No. 11-3502, 8/3/12

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderAugust 6, 2012

    As Rann’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim arises from his counsel’s failure to move to suppress evidence, Rann must prove “ ‘that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice.’ ” Ebert v. Gaetz, 610 F.3d 404, 411 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986)).1 Strickland requires that we presume counsel “ ‘rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment.’ ” Ebert, 610 F.3d at 411 (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690).

  3. Habeas – Ineffective Assistance – Suppression Motion

    Wisconsin State Public DefenderJune 27, 2010

    John Ebert v. Gaetz, 7th Circuit No. 09-1627, 6/23/107th circuit court of appeals decisionWhen the ineffective assistance claim is based on counsel’s failure to file a motion to suppress, as it is here, the defendant must also prove “that his Fourth Amendment claim is meritorious and that there is a reasonable probability that the verdict would have been different absent the excludable evidence in order to demonstrate actual prejudice.” Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986); see also United States v. Cieslowski, 410 F.3d 353, 360 (7th Cir. 2005). These are at best difficult showings to make, particularly since Strickland requires that we presume counsel “rendered adequate assistance and made all significant decisions in the exercise of reasonable professional judgment,” Strickland, 466 U.S. at 690, and evaluate his performance as a whole rather than focus on a single failing or oversight, Peoples v. United States, 403 F.3d 844, 848 (7th Cir. 2005).

  4. Habeas Corpus - Weekly Review 11/9-13/09

    Habeas Corpus BlogNovember 22, 2009

    Seems obvious, but I have to admit that I had never seen that language from that Supreme Court decision before. It's from Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 375 (1986).4. Davis v. Farrell, 07-CV-5920, 2009 WL 3817401 (SDNY Nov. 12, 2009) (BSJ) (DFE)Request for Subpoena DeniedNotes: Order from MJ; MJ denies petitioner's request to order City College to allow someone to come in and take pictures of where the incident occurred; MJ says that if City College allows it on its own, then MJ will look at the photos; the interesting part is that MJ tells petitioner to get them to him by December 10 since MJ expects to write the R&R in late December or early January; it's odd for an MJ to be so explicit about when he or she will be writing an opinion, but it makes sense here since we know that this MJ is retiring in January 5.

  5. Capital Defense Weekly, January 18, 1999

    Capital Defense NewsletterJanuary 18, 1999

    Because that testing process generally will not function properly unless defense counsel has done some investigation into the prosecution's case and into various defense strategies, [the Supreme Court has] noted that counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary. Williamson, 110 F.3d at 1514 (quoting Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384 (1986)) (internal quotation marks omitted). We have frequently stated, "In a capital case the attorney's duty to investigate all possible lines of defense is strictly observed."

  6. Capital Defense Weekly, August 10, 1998

    Capital Defense NewsletterAugust 10, 1998

    "Because that testing process generally will not function properly unless defense counsel has done some investigation into the prosecution's case and into various defense strategies, . . . counsel has a duty to make reasonable investigations or to make a reasonable decision that makes particular investigations unnecessary." Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U.S. 365, 384 (1986) (quotation omitted).Here, the defense team made an extensive effort to investigate Wall's family background and to secure the family's testimony at trial.