The government says that it is not going to use evidence from the search of defendant, but it reserves its ability to attempt to use it in rebuttal, if defendant opens the door. The possibility of a superseding indictment to add something else the evidence would be pertinent to is speculative now. United States v. Thomas, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 223436 (N.D.Ohio Nov. 19, 2021):<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
While Thomas raises concerns about the government’s indication that it may introduce the evidence in rebuttal, (Doc. No. 21 at 1-2), the government’s right to do so is well-established even if I were to grant the Defendant’s suppression motion. See, e.g., United States v. Spikes, 158 F.3d 913, 928 (6th Cir. 1998) (“[T]his court has consistently held that the admission of suppressed evidence is permissible when the defendant has opened the door on the topic.”) (citing United States v. Segines, 17 F.3d 847, 856 (6th Cir. 1994), and United States v. Ramos, 861 F.2d 461, 468 (6th Cir. 1988)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The government says that it is not going to use evidence from the search of defendant, but it reserves its ability to attempt to use it in rebuttal, if defendant opens the door. The possibility of a superseding indictment to … Continue reading