stating that defendant is not entitled to a hearing if after striking the disputed material there remains "sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause" (quotations and citations omitted)
How later courts described this case
- stating that defendant is not entitled to a hearing if after striking the disputed material there remains "sufficient content in the warrant affidavit to support a finding of probable cause" (quotations and citations omitted)
- affirming Goodwin’s reasoning that a *132 “pre-trial change in the indictment ... is less likely to be deemed vindictive.”
- “[A] defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing upon making a substantial preliminary showing that a governmental official deliberately or recklessly caused facts that preclude a finding of probable cause to be omitted from a warrant affidavit, even if the governmental official at fault is not the affiant.”
- “[A] defendant is entitled to a Franks hearing upon making a substantial preliminary showing that a government official deliberately or recklessly caused facts that preclude a finding of probable cause to be omitted from a warrant affidavit, even if the governmental official at fault is not the affiant.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
KING, Chief Judge,
specially concurring:
With one small exception, I concur fully in Judge Jones’s excellent opinion for the panel. The exception relates to whether the Government effectively misrepresented Patrick Graham’s credibility to the district judge when the agent said, in his affidavit, that “[sjince his cooperation with the FBI, he has never been known to provide false or misleading information.” The agent provided information (about pending indictments and a pending federal tax and corruption investigation of Graham) to the district judge that would put the judge on notice that Graham was potentially untrustworthy. Nevertheless, on the basis of Brown’s offer of proof, the district judge may not have been fully advised (as he should have been) of what may have been the Government’s well-founded conviction that Graham was, in fact, untrustworthy. But, as Judge Jones has clearly estab *407 lished, even if we assume arguendo that the Government was not truthful or sufficiently forthcoming on the matter of Graham’s lack of trustworthiness and we set aside all the allegations that are not independently corroborated, the affidavit still contains enough evidence to establish probable cause to believe that a crime was being committed.