F.3d 783, 851 (4th Cir. 2011) (finding ineffective assistance due to counsel’s blind acceptance of the government’s multiple pieces of forensic evidence, “including the medical examiner’s time-of-death opinion, the pubic hairs allegedly recovered from [the victim’s] bed, the nature of the ‘Item T’ materials removed from [the victim’s] bloody abdomen, and the fingerprint lifted from the blood-smeared toilet in [the victim’s] en suite bathroom”); Roberts v. Howton, 13 F.Supp.3d 1077, 1100-03 (D. Or. 2014) (ruling that counsel was ineffective for advising his client to plead guilty, as counsel failed to investigate preliminary cell tower evidence that could pinpoint the location and direction the defendant was traveling); United States v. Evans, 892 F.Supp.2d 949, 956-57 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, in this case, Swartz did not
holding that the governments use of a specific theory of cell tower analysis was unreliable but noting that other methods of cell site analysis have been tested by the scientific community holding that materiality analysis turns on the cumulative effect of the suppressed evidence not an itembyitem analysis recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis holding that the issue of waiver requires an analysis of the specific facts in each case recognizing that harmless error analysis is applicable if no reasonable administrative factfinder following the correct analysis could have resolved the factual matter in any other way quotation omitted