Did the lower courts err by suppressing evidence after a state court ruling?

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED 4. Did The Lower Courts err by hat Suppressing the evidence after ; Une Minnesota Supreme Court ruling in State w. Leonard, 943, NeW 2d 149C Minn 2020)! BERG NO Bates Seonard, 09 Na | UNL icensed Sent Cont Prosecatav\ al Misconduct by {Aa logy ug an i rer Liforming Delmer of pit Patener ering Pre chest) or 2 petttoneyr—that 1S attorneys Status) and by nat , Dat lls b ar The investtsaton A By We Co-Conspi rator who vs flheated Pop erney and the Uncharged ; 3Did Trial ottorr ; AV ev lab o Corll ; apprestice, and i coer tae centhl oF interest when his | To Petttoner onthe Same Cuce 2 “S For his Plonreprsttion 4Dilsrvot attorney LL. ‘ . | cy Labor Uidey a Ganflit of interest when qovern.cts | See reveal that is other Clteat was an uncharged ore vada " ; Lef—the atHorney te Prevent Pattoner From “Testing A neh Klong? sg Dd op, D i. rence ela heey Vu Meylendy rane She Informed lal. att < ourtetg The lonavage inthe Wditimed . OVnes vege | bat did rot Orney (RTH he Second Statloneah when the Souice recanted bis eaprt . regarding Detitloncyts tavolument ond the Fort that he olid nat tenon patient, 2 ©Does Use Tmmuntty via ProFFer Letich provide the Some pratection UndeyKastigay, Gwing —the Fock that Petittoney wos decgived who ‘ A Piolfev Secstou by Ws valicensed attarvey by calling 17 full temerity, and ait ng The Fock that Petitioney newer Susnedk oy agreed to the-ferms 2}-the ProF fey’ 1Did the Lower courts ew by wot gvarding an evigiectny heaving, ard by not ISSUING a Certftate of Appealabiliby ?