to take the stand at the removal hearing and testify as to his knowledge of the events that occurred on September 7, 2008. During the April 1, 2009, hearing, the defense attorney stated: And I think Your Honor may understand. I’ll be frank with the Court. My client is here today. I don’t want to put my client on the witness stand to establish, you know, if I don’t have to. (Hr’ g Tr. 89, Apr. 1,2009.) While the Court appreciates Clarke’s desire not to incriminate himself, it notes that Clarke could have testified at the removal hearing for the limited purpose of determining the removal question, without prejudice to his case at trial, as is often done in the context of suppression hearings. See Simmons v. United States, 390 U.S. 377, 390, 88 S. Ct. 967, 19 L. Ed. 2d 1247 (1968) (<HOLDING>). Clarke has also not offered any other
holding that similar agreement allowed the defendant to appeal the denial of his motion to suppress holding that appellate courts determine the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction based on a review of all of the evidence admitted at trial holding that argument was not preserved where defendant did not file a pretrial motion to suppress and did not object or make a motion to exclude the evidence until his motion to dismiss at the close of all of the evidence holding improperly admitted evidence was harmless error given the overwhelming evidence of guilt holding that testimony given by a defendant in support of a motion to suppress cannot be admitted as evidence of his guilt at trial