was required, and the Motion should be denied based upon the pleadings. B. The Motion should be Denied on its Merits Defendant moves to suppress a statement made to police on February 5, 1999, immediately following his arrest. At the April 27, 1999 hearing, the Government indicated that it did not intend to use this statement as part of its case in chief at Defendant’s trial. “The key inquiry with respect to the admission of inculpatory statements for the limited purpose of impeachment is the question of whether the statements were voluntary and not coerced.” United States v. Martin, 974 F.Supp. 677, 679 (C.D.Ill.1997) (citing Oregon v. Hass, 420 U.S. 714, 722, 95 S.Ct. 1215, 1220-21, 43 L.Ed.2d 570 (1975); United States ex rel. Adkins v. Greer, 791 F.2d 590, 596 n. 5 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>)). “The appropriate test for determining
holding that nonself inculpatory statements are not statements against penal interest under fedrevid 804b3 holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made holding that the disputed issue with respect to the state law bar was properly submitted to the jury holding that the key inquiry with respect to the admission of inculpatory statements as impeachment is the issue of voluntariness holding that the admission of out of court statements by a government witness when responding to an inquiry by defense counsel creates invited error 