Wednesday, June 4, 2008

Cuadra Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion: Motion For Separate Guilt Phase and Penalty Phase Jurors


83. Cuadra incorporates herein by reference and makes a part hereof Paragraphs one (1) through eighty-two (82), above, inclusive, as if the same were fully set forth at length herein.

84. As previously stated, Cuadra believes and therefore avers, that the death qualification process produces jurors who are both pro-prosecution and pro-conviction.

85. By empaneling a non-death qualified jury for the guilt phase of the Cuadra’s trial the bias inherent in a death-qualified jury would be avoided.

86. Should Cuadra be convicted of First Degree Murder by the non-death qualified jury, a death-qualified jury could then be selected for the Defendant’s penalty phase.

87. By the use of separate juries, Cuadra is in both phases of his trial provided a fair and impartial jury as required by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

88. There is no prejudice to the Commonwealth in the use of separate juries in the guilt and penalty phases.

WHEREFORE, the Defendant, Harlow Cuadra, moves this Honorable Court to order the empaneling of separate juries for the guilt and penalty phases of his trial.