Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to suppress, even though it is not admissible at trial. People v. Lesure, 271 Ill. App. 3d 679, 680 (1995). Moreover, federal law supports defendant’s argument. Federal Rule of Evidence 104(a) provides, in relevant part, “Preliminary questions concerning *** the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court ***. In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges.” (Emphasis added.) Fed. R. Evid. 104(a). The Supreme Court has explained that no automatic rule precludes the admission of hearsay when a trial court is determining the admissibility of evidence. United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164, 175, 39 L. Ed. 2d 242, 252, 94 S. Ct. 988, 995 (1974); see also United States v. Bolin, 514 F.2d 554, 557 (7th Cir. 1975) (<HOLDING>). After reviewing the cases cited by defendant, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress (B) holding that a legal conclusion on a motion to suppress is reviewed de novo (C) holding that the state is not allowed to suppress evidence but it need not collect evidence for the defendant (D) holding that hearsay is admissible in an evidentiary hearing on a motion to suppress evidence citing lara (E) holding that even though a hearing to suppress allegedly illegally seized evidence occurred under a superseded indictment the defendant may not relitigate the motion to suppress after reindictment
Output (English): holding that even though a hearing to suppress allegedly illegally seized evidence occurred under a superseded indictment the defendant may not relitigate the motion to suppress after reindictment