PCR Exhibits - Alaska State of Corruption

to a defendant that it constitutes reversible error absent a contemporaneous objection from trial
counsel and even in the fact of overwhelming evidence of guilt.”
United States v. Ramsey, 323 F. Supp.2d 27 (D.D.C. 2004) Counsel was ineffective for a number
of reasons, but primarily for failing to move for a mistrial after the court suppressed an
inculpatory statement after it was already heard by the jury. This error was considered in
conjunction with counsel’s ignorance of the law and failure to understand the implications of an
entrapment defense. Counsel’s conduct was deficient and the proffered strategy reasons for
failing to seek a mistrial were “so nonsensical that the court is left to conclude that [counsel]
simply abandoned what he decided at some point during the trial was an unwinnable case, and
had been unwilling to invest the time and effort that would be required by a second trial.”
Prejudice found, regardless of the likely outcome of a new trial, because counsel’s deficient
conduct deprived the defendant of a mistrial and, thus, “the opportunity for a second trial.”
Failing to Suppress Evidence
Joshua v. Dewitt, 341 F.3d 430 (6 th Cir. 2003) Trial and appellate counsel were ineffective for
failing to move to suppress evidence. Without this evidence, there was a substantial probability
that the defendant would not have been convicted.
Jones v. Wilder-Tomlinson, 577 F. Supp. 2d 1064 (Iowa 2008) Counsel ineffective in failing to
timely file a motion to suppress evidence. Prejudice established because “the evidence would
have been suppressed had timely motion to suppress been filed.”
Owens v. United States, 387 F.3d 607 (7 th Cir. 2004) Counsel was ineffective for failing to
adequately move to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a search of the defendant’s house. The
evidence was seized pursuant to a warrant based on a barebones affidavit, signed by a detective,
that stated that an informant had bought some crack form the defendant at the house three
months earlier. There was no indication of the quantity of crack or the reliability of the
informant. “The prejudice essential to a violation of the Sixth Amendment right to the effective
assistance of counsel is not being convicted though one is innocent, although that is the worst
kind; it is being convicted when one would have been acquitted, or at least would have had a
good shot at acquittal, had one been competently represented.”
State v. Horton, 146 P.3d 1227 (Wash. 2006) Counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress
evidence from a pat-down search. Prejudice found.
State v. Meckelson, 135 P.3d 991 (Wash. 2006) Counsel ineffective for failing to move to
suppress evidence on basis that the officer’s traffic stop was pretextual. Prejudice found because
there was a reasonable probability the motion to suppress would have been granted.
Collier v. State, 598 S.E.2d 373 (GA 2004) Counsel ineffective for failing to move to suppress
blood and urine samples taken from the defendant. Prejudice found because the admission of the
blood and urine results showing methamphetamine and amphetamine unquestionably harmed the
defense.
302