United States v. Lee Vang Lor
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2521
| 10th Cir. | 2013Background
- Lor and Thao were stopped for speeding; search with consent yielded about two pounds of crystal methamphetamine
- Peech later fired for falsifying a dispatch report; new evidence relates to false dispatch in 2007
- Defendant filed §2255 claiming he lacked a full and fair opportunity to litigate the Fourth Amendment claim
- District court denied the §2255 petition; court addressed whether post-hearing evidence could justify relief
- Court ultimately held no §2255 relief warranted and affirmed dismissal
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether post-suppression evidence can support §2255 relief | Lor denied full and fair opportunity | Stone bar applies; no relief for new impeachment evidence | No §2255 relief; Stone bar applies. |
| Whether the new evidence could establish a Brady violation to reopen the Fourth Amendment claim | New evidence shows impeachment; may imply Brady violation | Brady duty does not automatically require reopening or impeachment relief | Brady not shown; no re-litigation of Fourth Amendment claim. |
| Whether a new suppression hearing is appropriate to consider impeaching evidence | New impeachment evidence warrants new suppression hearing | No basis for second suppression hearing under Stone and policy aims | Not entitled to a second suppression hearing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (U.S. 1976) (exclusionary rule not required on collateral review where full and fair litigation occurred)
- Cook, 997 F.2d 1312 (10th Cir. 1993) (expands Stone bar to § 2255 petitions)
- Brock v. United States, 573 F.3d 497 (7th Cir. 2009) (post-hearing impeachment evidence does not defeat Stone bar)
- Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293 (U.S. 1963) (informs Townsend standard; not controlling for Fourth Amendment in this context)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1963) (duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence; applicability limited here)