In my legal case, Kentucky issued a published opinion affirming. My case sets a new precedent in Kentucky. After the conclusion of my trial, the court issued an opinion denying a motion to suppress. The court relied on absolutely nothing from the suppression hearing. Rather, it relied on ‘evidence’ introduced at trial. The ‘evidence’ at trial differed factually and materially from the evidence presented at suppression. Is this proper?
Very sorry, I am having trouble with the link to the original pdf document. I will notify readers as soon as I can fix this issue.
UPDATE: It should be fixed now.
