VI. Conclusion
For the reasons more fully stated above, in a conflict of laws analysis, Pennsylvania is the forum state and its analysis of the law should apply because it has the greater interest.
Under Pennsylvania interpretation, Kerekes’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached because he was arrested. All statements elicited from the Pennsylvania authorities and fruits thereof should be suppressed as obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
If analyzed under Virginia law, the statements and all fruits thereof should still be suppressed as obtained in violation of Kerekes’ Fifth Amendment rights.
For the reasons more fully stated above, in a conflict of laws analysis, Pennsylvania is the forum state and its analysis of the law should apply because it has the greater interest.
Under Pennsylvania interpretation, Kerekes’ Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached because he was arrested. All statements elicited from the Pennsylvania authorities and fruits thereof should be suppressed as obtained in violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.
If analyzed under Virginia law, the statements and all fruits thereof should still be suppressed as obtained in violation of Kerekes’ Fifth Amendment rights.
Respectfully Submitted,
Shelly L. Centini, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes
John Pike, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes
Shelly L. Centini, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes
John Pike, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes
