UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,
v.
DAVID LINDSEY CREWS, APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the defendant's conviction, finding the search warrant valid, the evidence sufficient, and the trial counsel effective.
The defendant was convicted of violations of Title 18 U.S.C.A. §§ 2314 and 2. His court-appointed counsel challenged the search warrant's probable cau…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Probable Cause For Search Warrant cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Convicted of violations of Title 18 U.S. C.A. §§ 2314 and 2, this defendant has appealed. His court-appointed counsel has vigorously attacked a search warrant upon the ground that the supporting affidavit did not disclose probable cause for the search, has earnestly questioned the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, and, at the insistence of the-defendant, has questioned the adequacy of his representation by court-appointed trial counsel.
After consideration of the record, the briefs and the argument of counsel, we affirm.
The affidavit in support of the search warrant was lengthy and detailed. The information it contained was in large-measure hearsay, but it was corroborated within the knowledge of the affiant in important respects. The hearsay information came to him from different sources and so dovetailed as to present within itself corroboration. It disclosed probable cause for the search which the warrant authorized.
The defendant’s subsequent possession of the instruments of the crimes,, coupled with other evidence indicating his. complicity, was quite sufficient to sustain; the conviction.
Our review of the trial record discloses that court-appointed trial counsel conscientiously served the cause of his client and that he was neither ineffective nor-neglectful in the discharge of his duty.
Affirmed.