The trial of an Altoona man facing charges for illegally possessing a firearm has been canceled following an opinion by Blair County Judge Jackie Atherton Bernard earlier this month suppressing the evidence police intended to use against him.

The judge ruled that the search warrant issued by police to locate a 9mm semi-automatic handgun allegedly used by Kenneth Harrell, 37, to threaten and harass a Hollidaysburg man in late May 2024 was flawed because the gun was found during a search of a home on the 1400 block of 20th Avenue where the suspect used to live, not at his most recent address.

That home is owned by a woman who knew Harrell and owned the car Harrell was driving when he made a video of himself holding a gun.

Harrell, it is charged, sent the video to the victim.

That incident on May 11, 2024, was followed by another video on May 31, of Harrell driving past the victim’s Hollidaysburg home.

That video eventually showed a gun on Harrell’s lap, according to charges.

Hollidaysburg and Altoona police jointly investigated the case and a search warrant seeking the gun was approved by Magisterial District Judge Matthew Dunio.

The warrant was for the home in the 1400 block of 20th Avenue, and that is where police went to find evidence that led to criminal charges against Harrell — firearms not to be possessed by a person convicted of a felony; firearms not to be carried without a license; receiving stolen property; terroristic threats; and harassment.

Harrell, who had a criminal record, was on state parole at the time of his arrest.

Since charges were filed 20 months ago, Harrell has been incarcerated in the Blair County Prison.

A jury was recently selected to hear the case, but Harrell’s attorney, David M. Bennati of Duncansville, filed a motion to suppress the evidence.

He contested the issuance of a warrant for a home Harrell initially designated as his “home plan” for the parole department.

But Harrell had moved to another location.

The defense pointed out that Harrell “was specifically not permitted to utilize that residence for his home plan.”

Bennati argued, “None of the victim’s texts, images or videos provided to police indicate the defendant’s presence at the residence.”

Bernard agreed with the defense, noting that after a review of case law, “The Court is compelled to find that (Harrell’s) connection to the location (the 20th Avenue residence) is not the same as a nexus between the residence and the possession of a firearm or the terroristic threats crimes. The search warrant does not link the firearm to the residence,” she concluded in her 13-page opinion issued earlier this month.

Bernard found there was no evidence indicating that Harrell had carried a firearm into the residence.

The judge’s order particularly affects the firearms-

related charges against Harrell. Her order, however, did not suppress evidence of harassment and terroristic threats.

As a result, Bernard instructed attorneys Bennati and Assistant District Attorney Nicholas Mays to be prepared for trial to begin Monday.

But the trial was canceled when the prosecution decided to appeal the judge’s decision to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.

Neither attorney was available for comment about the case.

The bad feelings between Harrell and the Hollidaysburg man began when Harrell and an acquaintance in late March got into an argument outside the victim’s home.

But Harrell later approached the victim at his place of employment, at which point the victim indicated he had started carrying a concealed weapon for self-defense.

Harrell is the inmate who this winter made public the rodent infestation at the prison — after allegedly ingesting part of a mouse in his morning oatmeal.

His coming forward about the rodent issue led to multiple lawsuits by inmates complaining about conditions in the county prison, including a class action lawsuit filed by inmates in the U.S. District Court in Johnstown.

He said negotiations to resolve his case have hit a stone wall because the prosecution wants a seven-year sentence imposed on him.

The decision by Bernard, he said, has been a “big release” for him because it means he could soon get out of prison, although he said he probably will remain behind bars while the Superior Court reviews the judge’s opinion.

“I’m ready to go home, to my job, to my kids,” he said.

Prior to his recent incarceration, he was employed as a home health care worker.