Judge Sand did suppress certain statements by Mr. al-'Owhali that were made before Aug. 22, when, prosecutors say, he was lying about his role and his identity.

The defendant, Danielle Paul, wanted to suppress evidence gathered from a search of her vehicle and self as well as statements made during the stop made by Officer Sean McCarthy.

The order, by Justice Thomas B. Galligan of State Supreme Court in Manhattan, came during a pre-trial hearing in which defense lawyers asked the judge to suppress videotaped and written statements the six defendants had made to the police.

Defense lawyers have tried to persuade the court to give the defendants separate trials, and submitted a number of other pretrial motions challenging the investigators' tests and re-enactments as "junk science" and sought to suppress statements made voluntarily by the two men during the investigation.

He moved to suppress statements he made to the FBI because he had not received the Miranda warnings before he spoke to the FBI.

He was no longer suppressing statements and substituting other state-ments he knew to be false.

In practice, taking writs is far more common in criminal matters and most often involves objections to a district court's pre-trial rulings on defense motions to suppress evidence, statements, or identifications.

But the most widely anticipated motion, to suppress statements that Mr. Malvo made to investigators during an interrogation in November, was not even presented by the defense today.

Before trial, the defendant sought to suppress his oral and written statements as fruits of an unlawful arrest not supported by probable cause.

His plea came as defense lawyers fought to suppress statements from remaining defendants after the bank entered the guilty plea on Tuesday.