Whether the trial court erred in denying the motion to suppress evidence

QUESTIONS) PRESENTED Te Cour Bred In Denying motion +o SUPP regs ; FORA COB Sered a Oharging th, Tury on Flighajand Ree Gugrame Fale wring WS CRMing Salewrent Dn Ahmed Seshinon Y thd tye Couse of ITSO SASGert ed nig Seuemy-five-Vear sone WaS " Homitide ’) The 4ria\ Cow Eeve } DNVALE Mak ep lessive In PermHing He Slate 4, ad ‘te AF Tog Pree Foundation, it Ge Scene Phi Dunigel ag, TnetFec | , | 8), Counga| es tn twe When hefatled da Call \unesses ‘arse Uae narra lias Bean @ balishics ext, NSA, WOE | oh Pech } UR Tenet inet F2ch £40V failinc 48 Sevey that Cott trom +he trurder LD inelPechue oF Counse| Lal; < He Prasector an. Rl\ole ho ve peed tO opening and (lasing Slofoment Fan Stole VOURINIES yt) Rice ore iN Hectveness for noroddeeseethe On eae hae: Commies ae tae ry Pa tement i ober Benin Found a heen Mod. he pen IM his bbodste can, Peal teh that Kio} i) the Rendarwt, Nef Mari juon 4 wad (A Counsel wos \nePPectye to SUPP kine nt these issues of Detective more land ,< ir InFaiingde Corrdborate thetecti (8), Counsel Was nefbective in Palin ‘o rel CK Partner Wac Det. Bersted [Une pte _4 , R (fF and waver Lostipien een dons Stotement Wha was oflera balk D.Cumulatue ror Derived Yop Dalen dont Due Process oF Jay and a-Byic oe ,