Judgment affirmed.
Notwithstanding the fact that the arresting officer's testimony before the Grand Jury and at trial differed as to the chronology of observing a weapon in the immediate vicinity of the defendant and the search of his person, the trial testimony may not be said, as a matter of law, to have been "tailored" to preclude constitutional objections to the search, as the defendant contends. Furthermore, the credible evidence adduced indicates there existed...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
