XII. MOTION TO INSTRUCT THE JURY AS TO THE DEFINITION OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT AT ALL LEVELS OF THE PENDING PROCEEDING
71. Cuadra incorporates herein by reference and makes a part hereof Paragraphs one (1) through seventy-two (70), above, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth at length herein.
72. In light of the Commonwealth’s intent to seek the death penalty, the jury will be questioned at length during voir dire to determine if they are “death qualified”. There exists substantial social science data that juries begin to form opinions abbut the imposition of the death penalty beginning with the voir dire process and form an opinion as to penalty during the guilt stage of the trial. There also exists substantial social science fact a sentence which allows for parole after a finite period of years substantially less than life: In the absence of information provided to the jury that a life sentence in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is, in fact, a sentence of life without parole, Cuadra believes, and therefore avers, that the jury will become predisposed to a sentence of death as opposed to the potential for life sentence which they erroneously believe results in less than lifetime imprisonment. Such predisposition deprives Cuadra of his right to a fair and impartial jury trial pursuant to article I, Sections 6, 9 and 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
73. The cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania indicate that the jury should be instructed as to the definition of life imprisomnent when the issue of future dangerousness of Cuadra arises. Cuadra, Harlow Cuadra, believes, and therefore avers, that his age and appearance in and of themselves interject the issue of future dangerousness into the case. This is particularly true when it is considered that jurors believe that he would be released on parole at some future date. As such, Cuadra believes, and therefore avers, that the jury should be instructed as to the definition of life imprisonment without parole throughout this case.
74. In several other capital cases in this country, the Court at all stages of the proceedings referred to the sentence of life imprisonment as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Consistency in the administration of justice within the county, and avoidance of the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty, requires that in the instant case, the jury should be instructed at all times that life imprisonment is defined as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
75. Cuadra believes, and therefore avers, that the failure of the Court to inform the jury at all stages of the proceedings that life imprisonment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole deprives the jury of critical information in the formation of their opinion, attitudes and ultimately the sentence in this case. As such, the Defendant, Harlow Cuadra, would be deprived of a fair trial in violation of article I, Sections 6, 9 and 33 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
76. Cuadra recognizes that, where the jury is instructed that life imprisonment means life without the possibility of parole, that the Commonwealth may attempt to refer to the possibility of pardon or commutation of sentence. Harlow Cuadra, believes, and therefore avers, that the potential for pardon or commutation is so minuscule that allowing the Commonwealth to refer to them interjects inappropriate and prejudicial factors into the proceedings and deprive the Defendant, Harlow Cuadra, of a fair trial in violation of Article I, Sections 6, 9 and 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for the Constitution of the United States.
77. That should the Court grant leave to the Commonwealth to refer to the potential for pardon or commutation of sentence, Cuadra believes, and therefore avers, that a fair trial and due process require that the jury be provided with statistical data as to the granting of commutation or pardons for life sentences without parole in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Cuadra belleves, and therefore avers, that the jury should be instructed as to such statistical data by the Court or the Commonwealth, or, in the alternative, that Cuadra be permitted to present such evidence in anticipation of the Commonwealth’s arguments regarding pardon or commutation.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Harlow Cuadra, moves this Honorable Court to instruct the jury during voir dire, and at all other appropriate times, that life imprisonment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is defined as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant further moves this Court, if necessary, to provide the jury with statistics regarding the granting of pardon or commutation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania either directly by the Court, through the Commonwealth or through the defense.
71. Cuadra incorporates herein by reference and makes a part hereof Paragraphs one (1) through seventy-two (70), above, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth at length herein.
72. In light of the Commonwealth’s intent to seek the death penalty, the jury will be questioned at length during voir dire to determine if they are “death qualified”. There exists substantial social science data that juries begin to form opinions abbut the imposition of the death penalty beginning with the voir dire process and form an opinion as to penalty during the guilt stage of the trial. There also exists substantial social science fact a sentence which allows for parole after a finite period of years substantially less than life: In the absence of information provided to the jury that a life sentence in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is, in fact, a sentence of life without parole, Cuadra believes, and therefore avers, that the jury will become predisposed to a sentence of death as opposed to the potential for life sentence which they erroneously believe results in less than lifetime imprisonment. Such predisposition deprives Cuadra of his right to a fair and impartial jury trial pursuant to article I, Sections 6, 9 and 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
73. The cases decided by the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania indicate that the jury should be instructed as to the definition of life imprisomnent when the issue of future dangerousness of Cuadra arises. Cuadra, Harlow Cuadra, believes, and therefore avers, that his age and appearance in and of themselves interject the issue of future dangerousness into the case. This is particularly true when it is considered that jurors believe that he would be released on parole at some future date. As such, Cuadra believes, and therefore avers, that the jury should be instructed as to the definition of life imprisonment without parole throughout this case.
74. In several other capital cases in this country, the Court at all stages of the proceedings referred to the sentence of life imprisonment as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Consistency in the administration of justice within the county, and avoidance of the arbitrary and capricious imposition of the death penalty, requires that in the instant case, the jury should be instructed at all times that life imprisonment is defined as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole.
75. Cuadra believes, and therefore avers, that the failure of the Court to inform the jury at all stages of the proceedings that life imprisonment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is life imprisonment without the possibility of parole deprives the jury of critical information in the formation of their opinion, attitudes and ultimately the sentence in this case. As such, the Defendant, Harlow Cuadra, would be deprived of a fair trial in violation of article I, Sections 6, 9 and 33 of the Pennsylvania Constitution and the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
76. Cuadra recognizes that, where the jury is instructed that life imprisonment means life without the possibility of parole, that the Commonwealth may attempt to refer to the possibility of pardon or commutation of sentence. Harlow Cuadra, believes, and therefore avers, that the potential for pardon or commutation is so minuscule that allowing the Commonwealth to refer to them interjects inappropriate and prejudicial factors into the proceedings and deprive the Defendant, Harlow Cuadra, of a fair trial in violation of Article I, Sections 6, 9 and 13 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, and the Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments for the Constitution of the United States.
77. That should the Court grant leave to the Commonwealth to refer to the potential for pardon or commutation of sentence, Cuadra believes, and therefore avers, that a fair trial and due process require that the jury be provided with statistical data as to the granting of commutation or pardons for life sentences without parole in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Cuadra belleves, and therefore avers, that the jury should be instructed as to such statistical data by the Court or the Commonwealth, or, in the alternative, that Cuadra be permitted to present such evidence in anticipation of the Commonwealth’s arguments regarding pardon or commutation.
WHEREFORE, Defendant, Harlow Cuadra, moves this Honorable Court to instruct the jury during voir dire, and at all other appropriate times, that life imprisonment in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is defined as life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Defendant further moves this Court, if necessary, to provide the jury with statistics regarding the granting of pardon or commutation in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania either directly by the Court, through the Commonwealth or through the defense.
