I. Statement of Facts
On May 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Leo Hannon, Troopers Murphy and Polishan, Dallas Township Police Department Sergeant Douglas Higgins and Luzerne County Detective Daniel Yursha filed criminal charges against the defendant relating to the death of Bryan Kocis. See Homicide Investigation Report attached hereto as “Exhibit 1."
On that same date, Virginia Beach Police Department apprehended the defendant on a “Fugitive from Justice” warrant. See Report, Exhibit 1. Upon information and belief, the jurisdiction from which the defendant was allegedly a fugitive from was Pennsylvania, relating to the charges filed against him earlier in the day.
Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Hannon, Special Agent Glenn, Detective Yursha, and Sergeant Higgins traveled to Virginia on the same date that the charges were filed and the defendant was apprehended. See Report Exhibit 1. The Pennsylvania authorities arrived at Virginia Beach Police Department to find the defendant in an interview room, Mirandized. ld.
Defendant Kerekes invoked his right to counsel by requesting that he speak to an attorney prior to questioning. ld. Kerekes told officers that his attorney was either Atty. Taylor or Atty. Brewer. ld.
Despite the tact that Kerekes unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, Trooper Hannon asked Kerekes questions regarding “biographical” information. ld. Upon information and belief, this questioning went beyond identifying information and included questioning regarding the identity of his paramour, family history, educational background, religion, military history and employment history. ld.
Despite the fact that Kerekes unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, Trooper Hannon told Kerekes he was under arrest for the murder of Bryan Kocis and proceeded to read aloud the criminal complaint to Kerekes. ld. See also Complaint and Affidavit attached hereto as “Exhibit 2.” When he was finished reading the complaint to Kerekes, Corporal Hannon questioned Kerekes regarding his understanding of the document. ld.
Despite the fact that Kerekes unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, Trooper Hannon read aloud the affidavit of probable cause to Kerekes. ld. See also Complaint and Affidavit “Exhibit 2.” The affidavit of probable cause contains statements made by third parties regarding the crimes with which Kerekes was charged. Complaint and Affidavit “Exhibit 2.” Kerekes made certain statements during this session with Corporal Hannon which the defendant believes, and therefore avers, the Commonwealth will seek to use at trial.
1 Defendant Kerekes challenges the admissibility of the statements he made while in custody at the Virginia Beach Police Department on the day of his arrest. He does not challenge the admissibility of the statements made during his transport from Virginia Beach to Pennsylvania.
On May 15, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Leo Hannon, Troopers Murphy and Polishan, Dallas Township Police Department Sergeant Douglas Higgins and Luzerne County Detective Daniel Yursha filed criminal charges against the defendant relating to the death of Bryan Kocis. See Homicide Investigation Report attached hereto as “Exhibit 1."
On that same date, Virginia Beach Police Department apprehended the defendant on a “Fugitive from Justice” warrant. See Report, Exhibit 1. Upon information and belief, the jurisdiction from which the defendant was allegedly a fugitive from was Pennsylvania, relating to the charges filed against him earlier in the day.
Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Hannon, Special Agent Glenn, Detective Yursha, and Sergeant Higgins traveled to Virginia on the same date that the charges were filed and the defendant was apprehended. See Report Exhibit 1. The Pennsylvania authorities arrived at Virginia Beach Police Department to find the defendant in an interview room, Mirandized. ld.
Defendant Kerekes invoked his right to counsel by requesting that he speak to an attorney prior to questioning. ld. Kerekes told officers that his attorney was either Atty. Taylor or Atty. Brewer. ld.
Despite the tact that Kerekes unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, Trooper Hannon asked Kerekes questions regarding “biographical” information. ld. Upon information and belief, this questioning went beyond identifying information and included questioning regarding the identity of his paramour, family history, educational background, religion, military history and employment history. ld.
Despite the fact that Kerekes unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, Trooper Hannon told Kerekes he was under arrest for the murder of Bryan Kocis and proceeded to read aloud the criminal complaint to Kerekes. ld. See also Complaint and Affidavit attached hereto as “Exhibit 2.” When he was finished reading the complaint to Kerekes, Corporal Hannon questioned Kerekes regarding his understanding of the document. ld.
Despite the fact that Kerekes unequivocally invoked his right to counsel, Trooper Hannon read aloud the affidavit of probable cause to Kerekes. ld. See also Complaint and Affidavit “Exhibit 2.” The affidavit of probable cause contains statements made by third parties regarding the crimes with which Kerekes was charged. Complaint and Affidavit “Exhibit 2.” Kerekes made certain statements during this session with Corporal Hannon which the defendant believes, and therefore avers, the Commonwealth will seek to use at trial.
1 Defendant Kerekes challenges the admissibility of the statements he made while in custody at the Virginia Beach Police Department on the day of his arrest. He does not challenge the admissibility of the statements made during his transport from Virginia Beach to Pennsylvania.
