VI. MOTION TO SUPPRESS ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS
27. Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-26, inclusive of this Motion as if same were fully set forth herein at length.
28. The police have questioned the Delendant, Harlow Cuadra, while Cuadra - was a focus of the police’s investigation into the aforesaid offenses.
29. During the aforesaid questioning(s), the police obtained statements from the Defendant which formed the basis of the above-captioned Information and which the Commonwealth may seek to introduce at trial.
30. Any and all of the aforesaid statements were obtained by the police in violation of Cuadra’s rights under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions as specified by Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and its progeny.
31. Cuadra was subjected to custodial interrogation in that he reasonably believed that his freedom was restricted by the police. Despite the aforesaid, Cuadra was not advised of his right to counsel; nor of his right to remain silent; nor that anything he said would be used against him at trial and, therefore, did not intelligently, knowingly or intelligently waive his aforesaid Constitutional Rights.
32. Additionally, any such statements were not knowingly, voluntarilly and intelligently made.
WHEREFORE, Cuadra, Harlow Cuadra, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order supressing any and all statements made to the police and forbidding their use at trial.
27. Defendant incorporates by reference the allegations contained in Paragraphs 1-26, inclusive of this Motion as if same were fully set forth herein at length.
28. The police have questioned the Delendant, Harlow Cuadra, while Cuadra - was a focus of the police’s investigation into the aforesaid offenses.
29. During the aforesaid questioning(s), the police obtained statements from the Defendant which formed the basis of the above-captioned Information and which the Commonwealth may seek to introduce at trial.
30. Any and all of the aforesaid statements were obtained by the police in violation of Cuadra’s rights under the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions as specified by Miranda vs Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and its progeny.
31. Cuadra was subjected to custodial interrogation in that he reasonably believed that his freedom was restricted by the police. Despite the aforesaid, Cuadra was not advised of his right to counsel; nor of his right to remain silent; nor that anything he said would be used against him at trial and, therefore, did not intelligently, knowingly or intelligently waive his aforesaid Constitutional Rights.
32. Additionally, any such statements were not knowingly, voluntarilly and intelligently made.
WHEREFORE, Cuadra, Harlow Cuadra, respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order supressing any and all statements made to the police and forbidding their use at trial.
