The common thread running through our cases is that sizeable drug transactions support a finding of foreseeability, i.e., where the quantities involved were large enough to create a significant incentive for drug traffickers to want weap- ons to defend their stock. The police found 127 grams of cocaine at Helen Jack- son's house, packaged in smaller quantities for retail sale. The value of the drugs kept at Helen Jackson's house was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that Donald and Necole Lamb could reasonably foresee their co-conspirator's use of a firearm. Because the tapes were crucial to the government's case, trial counsel moved to suppress the tapes by attacking the validity of the in- tercept order issued to allow the wiretap. To expand that theory, trial counsel asked the court to hold an evidentiary hearing regarding McGauley's affidavit.
Defendants now say that trial coun- sel acted incompetently in requesting that hearing.
The procedure for obtaining an intercept order follows the same pattern as that for a search warrant. Affidavits supporting search warrants are presumed valid. A defendant asking for such an evidentiary hearing makes a so-called Franks motion. Trial counsel here did make a Franks motion, pointing to five alleged untruths in McGauley's affidavit support- ing the order. Whether the discrepancies are due to inadvertence, failure of recollection, intentional misstatement of fact, we can- not determine because we do not have information sufficient to determine the validity of the rest of the information.