© The Missouri Bar 2005. All Rights Reserved.
X.(§11.41)Form—Motion to Suppress Statements
[Caption]
[Name of Defendant], by and through counsel, moves this Court to suppress all alleged statements, whether oral, written, or videotaped or otherwise recorded, that the state intends to use in evidence against the defendant. In support thereof, Defendant states as follows:
A.The statement was not voluntary because:
1.Defendant was not presented before an associate circuit judge “as soon as practicable,”the statement was obtained before presentation before an associate circuit judge, and a lawyer was not afforded Defendant before or during the interrogation.
2.The length and nature of Defendant’s custody, the duration and nature of Defendant’s interrogation, and the conditions under which the interrogation was conducted were inherently coercive as applied to a person of Defendant’s education, background, and physical and mental condition at the time the interrogation occurred.
3.Defendant was subjected to mental, physical, and psychological duress during the interrogation.
4.Defendant, a person of limited education, was induced to make alleged statements by averments and promises of the arresting officers, and the averments were ones of implication in the offense charged and the promises were ones of leniency and of a desire to help Defendant.
B.The statement was made without Defendant first being advised of his constitutional rights, to-wit:
1.Defendant was not advised in clear and unequivocal terms of his right to remain silent before his interrogation.
2.Defendant was not advised that anything that he said could and would be used against him in a court of law.
3.Defendant was not advised of his right to consult with a lawyer and to have a lawyer present with him during the interrogation.
4.Defendant was not advised that a lawyer would be appointed for him if he was indigent.
5.Defendant did not waive his right to remain silent, his right to counsel, or his right to have counsel appointed to represent him.
6.The interrogation by the police officers did not cease when Defendant indicated that he wished to remain silent and that he wished to have appointed counsel present on his behalf during the interrogation.
All the matters herein mentioned were in violation of Defendant’s constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, and under Article I, §19, and Article I, §10, of the Missouri Constitution.
C.The statement was the direct result of an unlawful arrest because:
1.The arrest was made without warrant and without authority.
2.Defendant did not violate any law, either misdemeanor or felony, in the presence of the officers that would warrant the arrest.
3.The arresting officer had no probable cause or reasonable grounds to believe that Defendant had committed a felony.
D.The statement was obtained in violation of Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel because the police officers continued to deliberately elicit the statements from Defendant after he had invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsel and he did not waive that right during any subsequent interrogations.
E.The confession was obtained in violation of Article I, §15, of the Missouri Constitution, and of the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution.
Respectfully submitted,
Attorney for Defendant