COMMONWEALTH'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.Crim.P.581(D)
NOW COMES, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by and through its attorneys, JACQUELINE MUSTO CARROLL, District Attorney of Luzerne County, MICHAEL MELNICK, Assistant District Attorney of Luzerne County, TIMOTHY M. DOHERTY Assistant District Attorney of Luzerne County, WILLIAM J. DUNN, JR. Assistant District Attorney of Luzerne County, and SHANNON CRAKE Assistant District Attorney of Luzerne County, who hereby move this Honorable Court to deny and dismiss Defendant, Joseph Kerekes’ Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion and in support thereof, avers the following:
1. The Defendant in the above-referenced matter is an adult individual incarcerated in the Luzeme County Correctional Facility.
2. On May 15, 2007, the Defendant was arrested and charged with multiple offenses arising from a criminal homicide which occurred on January 24, 2007.
3. The Defendant was arraigned on October 4, 2007, and entered a plea of Not Guilty to the charges of: Criminal Homicide; Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Homicide; Arson-Danger of Death or Bodily Injury; Arson-Inhabited Building or Structure; Robbery-Inflict Serious Bodily Injury; Theft by Unlawful Taking-Movable Property; Tamper With/Fabricate Physical Evidence; Abuse of Corpse; Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery; Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence; and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Arson.
4. In furtherance of the investigation in the instant matter, the Commonwealth has acquired a voluminous amount of evidence which is in the form of various mediums.
5. On January 30, 2008, the Defendant filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion which, inter cilia, requests that this Honorable Court suppress various and broadly-defined articles of evidence.
6. Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(D), all motions to the court for the suppression of evidence alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights, must state specifically and with particularity the evidence sought to be suppressed, the grounds for suppression, and the facts and events in support thereof’
7. Throughout his Motion, Defendant makes bald, boilerplate assertions without specifying the particular facts and/or specific authority that would lend support to his conclusion.
8. In Paragraphs 28-32 of his Motion, the defendant claims that any and all statements which were made to the police should be suppressed on the grounds that they were obtained in violation of the broadly-scoped “United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions as specified by Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and its progeny.”
9. The Defendant fails to allege which law enforcement agency or police department obtained such statements or even what State or jurisdiction the Defendant was in when Pa.R 58 1(D)., the statements were made. The “facts and events” in support of Defendant’s suppression assertion appear nowhere.
1O. The Defendant’s request is completely void of anything specific as to time, place, or what location he was in when these allegedly suppressible statements were uttered.
11. The Commonwealth is unable to properly respond to Paragraph’s 28-32 of Defendant’s Motion due to the lack of any of the requisite specificity as to which statements are in contention and by what specific authority the statements should be suppressed.
12. The only authority offered in support of Defendant’s foregoing request is the broad and boilerplate assertion that Defendant’s rights were violated pursuant to the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. See, Paragraph 30.
13. The Defendant makes reference to his alleged prior bad acts without delineating the same. This blanket assertion is in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(D).
14. Therefore, due to the fact that Defendant’s Omnibus Motion fails to state specifically and with particularity the grounds for suppression, and the facts and events in support thereof, the Commonwealth is unable to properly respond to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, and the same should be stricken and not heard before this Honorable Court due to non compliance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(D).
WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order striking Defendant’s Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion to suppress evidence for failure to comply with the Rules of Criminal Procedure, or, in the alternative, Defendant is Ordered to file an amended Motion which more specifically addresses the date, time, and place of alleged statements and prior bad acts, as well as “the facts and events” in support thereof.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
MUSTO CARROLL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY
MICHAEL MELNICK
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
SHANNON CRAKE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
WILLIAM J. DUNN, JR.
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
