Ask a Lawyer and Get Answers to Your Legal Questions
I'm Lucy, and I'd be happy to answer your questions today.
Generally, yes, that's allowed. For example, if the judge found that a statement given by the accused was not admissible because there were no Miranda warnings, the officer could still testify as to events surrounding the arrest, any spontaneous statements made before the arrest, evidence found after the arrest, and things like that. The suppression of one piece of evidence does not automatically require the suppression of ALL testimony from that individual.
If you're willing to give me any additional facts about your situation, I should be able to provide a more specific answer for you.
Some of the testimony was thrown out because the officer could not possibly have seen what he said he saw, therefore lying.
If the judge found that the officer was not a credible witness, then he can choose to exclude all of his testimony.
The judge is also allowed to say "I think you're lying about this, but I don't think you're lying about these other things" and restrict the scope of the testimony to certain topics. If that happens, the accused is still able to cross-examine the officer at trial and prove that he's lying about everything.