Ellison v. United States

ruling that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying production of agents' rough notes | ruling that a district court did not abuse its discretion in denying production of agents’ rough notes | finding an actual conflict of interest under similar circumstances since “if the allegations in defendant’s motion were true, [the attorney’s] actions would be tantamount to malpractice” | actual conflict where, in pro se hearing, defendant alleged information which, if true, counsel acknowledged, would be tantamount to malpractice on behalf of counsel | found both actual conflict and adverse effect when lawyer "testified" against defendant in a Rule 32 hearing fending off allegations by defendant which would constitute malpractice | found both actual conflict and adverse effect when lawyer "testified” against defendant in a Rule 32 hearing fending off allegations by defendant which would constitute malpractice | conflict readily apparent — defense attorney testified against client at hearing and defendant was effectively without counsel | “The Supreme Court has not extended its exclusionary rule to in-court identification procedures that are suggestive because of the trial setting.” | abuse of discretion applies only where allegedly tainted identification procedures were initially conducted in-court | concern with in-court identification, where there has been suggestive pretrial identification, is that witness later identi fíes the person in court, not from his recollection of observations at time of crime, but from suggestive pretrial identification | The record created by a Rule 11 inquiry provides a “presumption of verity.” | speculation about materials in government files does not require disclosure