I. Statement of Relevant Facts
On April 27, 2007, Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office Detective Lieutenant Daniel Yursha, Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Leo Hannon, San Diego City Police Department Detectives Robert Donaldson, Lynn Rydalch and Laurie Agnew, San Diego District Attorney’s Office Investigator Ronald Thill, Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Andrew Pappas and Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agent Kim Kelly, electronically intercepted conversations between Grant Roy, Seañ Lockhart, Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra as they traveled to several locations in La Jolla, California, including Crabcatcher’s Restaurant. Such intercept was executed without a warrant. Such intercept was executed only upon the “consent” of one party to the conversation, Grant Roy. Homicide Investigation Action Report 4/27/07 attached hereto as “Exhibit 1.”
On April 28, 2007, Detective Yursha, Trooper Hannon, Sergeant Donaldson, Agent Pappas and Special Agent Kelly again electronically intercepted conversations between Grant Roy, Sean Lockhart, Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra at Black’s Beach in California. Such intercept was executed without a warrant. Such intercept was executed only upon the consent” of one party to the conversation, Grant Roy. Homicide Investigation Action Report 4/28/08 attached hereto as “Exhibit 2.”
Upon information and belief, Grant Roy was at all relevant times a resident of California. Neither defendant Kerekes nor defendant Cuadra were at any time residents of California or Pennsylvania.
Both interceptions were conducted in California at the request of Pennsylvania law enforcement officials in connection with the investigation in Pennsylvania of the death of Bryan Kocis, for which Pennsylvania authorities eventually arrested the defendants.
Defendants believe, and therefore aver, that the Commonwealth intends to use the intercepts and/or the transcripts of the intercepts at trial in this matter, Further, the Commonwealth has alleged that the intercepts contain potentially incriminatory statements made by defendants Kerekes and/or Cuadra.
Upon information and belief, Grant Roy never gave written consent to the recording of the conversations of April 27 or 28, 2007 to authorities. Upon information and belief, Grant Roy was approached by Pennsylvania law enforcement. He was interviewed several times regarding his knowledge about the death of Bryan Kocis and his prior business dealings with Bryan Kocis by Pennsylvania law enforcement officials prior to acting as an informant in this matter. Such interviews were conducted in the presence of Grant Roy’s counsel and at least one interview was recorded by Grant Roy’s attorney. Grant Roy was solicited by Pennsylvania law enforcement officials to act as an informant.
According to filed legal papers, Grant Roy’s company LSG Media, LLC, was involved in a lawsuit initiated by Bryan Kocis and his company Cobra Video regarding, inter alia, the trademark of Sean Lockhart’s (aka Brent Corrigan’s) name in the gay porn industry. Such lawsuit was ongoing at the time of Bryan Kocis death. Complaint caption Cobra v. Lockhart et al attached hereto as “Exhibit 3.”
On April 27, 2007, Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office Detective Lieutenant Daniel Yursha, Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Leo Hannon, San Diego City Police Department Detectives Robert Donaldson, Lynn Rydalch and Laurie Agnew, San Diego District Attorney’s Office Investigator Ronald Thill, Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Andrew Pappas and Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agent Kim Kelly, electronically intercepted conversations between Grant Roy, Seañ Lockhart, Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra as they traveled to several locations in La Jolla, California, including Crabcatcher’s Restaurant. Such intercept was executed without a warrant. Such intercept was executed only upon the “consent” of one party to the conversation, Grant Roy. Homicide Investigation Action Report 4/27/07 attached hereto as “Exhibit 1.”
On April 28, 2007, Detective Yursha, Trooper Hannon, Sergeant Donaldson, Agent Pappas and Special Agent Kelly again electronically intercepted conversations between Grant Roy, Sean Lockhart, Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra at Black’s Beach in California. Such intercept was executed without a warrant. Such intercept was executed only upon the consent” of one party to the conversation, Grant Roy. Homicide Investigation Action Report 4/28/08 attached hereto as “Exhibit 2.”
Upon information and belief, Grant Roy was at all relevant times a resident of California. Neither defendant Kerekes nor defendant Cuadra were at any time residents of California or Pennsylvania.
Both interceptions were conducted in California at the request of Pennsylvania law enforcement officials in connection with the investigation in Pennsylvania of the death of Bryan Kocis, for which Pennsylvania authorities eventually arrested the defendants.
Defendants believe, and therefore aver, that the Commonwealth intends to use the intercepts and/or the transcripts of the intercepts at trial in this matter, Further, the Commonwealth has alleged that the intercepts contain potentially incriminatory statements made by defendants Kerekes and/or Cuadra.
Upon information and belief, Grant Roy never gave written consent to the recording of the conversations of April 27 or 28, 2007 to authorities. Upon information and belief, Grant Roy was approached by Pennsylvania law enforcement. He was interviewed several times regarding his knowledge about the death of Bryan Kocis and his prior business dealings with Bryan Kocis by Pennsylvania law enforcement officials prior to acting as an informant in this matter. Such interviews were conducted in the presence of Grant Roy’s counsel and at least one interview was recorded by Grant Roy’s attorney. Grant Roy was solicited by Pennsylvania law enforcement officials to act as an informant.
According to filed legal papers, Grant Roy’s company LSG Media, LLC, was involved in a lawsuit initiated by Bryan Kocis and his company Cobra Video regarding, inter alia, the trademark of Sean Lockhart’s (aka Brent Corrigan’s) name in the gay porn industry. Such lawsuit was ongoing at the time of Bryan Kocis death. Complaint caption Cobra v. Lockhart et al attached hereto as “Exhibit 3.”
Pennsylvania law enforcement considered Grant Roy a “known enemy” of Bryan Kocis. Excerpt of Victim Checklist attached hereto as “Exhibit 4.” Grant Roy had a blog spot and email address titled, “Cobra Killer.” See Transcript of 4/27/07 Intercept at Crabcatcher’s previously filed of record to this docket by the Commonwealth at p. 123-124.
Further, the team of authorities assembled to conduct the electronic intercept did not possess prior approval from an attorney general, deputy attorney general, district attorney, assistant district attorney who independently reviewed the facts and determined that Grant Roy’s “consent” was voluntary.
1. The Commonwealth's document also contains a section titled "Statement of Facts." The Commonwealth's "facts" are not facts at all. Rather, they are conclusions of law and rehtoric of counsel, wholly unsupported by citations to any evidentaiary record.
2. The fact that Kerekes was not a resident of Pennsylvania at the time of the intercept should not impact the analysis. The holdings of the cases discussed infra do not turn on a finding of residency, although as a practical matter in most cases the parties are residents. However, the conflict exists between the forum state and the state where the evidence was collected.
Further, the team of authorities assembled to conduct the electronic intercept did not possess prior approval from an attorney general, deputy attorney general, district attorney, assistant district attorney who independently reviewed the facts and determined that Grant Roy’s “consent” was voluntary.
1. The Commonwealth's document also contains a section titled "Statement of Facts." The Commonwealth's "facts" are not facts at all. Rather, they are conclusions of law and rehtoric of counsel, wholly unsupported by citations to any evidentaiary record.
2. The fact that Kerekes was not a resident of Pennsylvania at the time of the intercept should not impact the analysis. The holdings of the cases discussed infra do not turn on a finding of residency, although as a practical matter in most cases the parties are residents. However, the conflict exists between the forum state and the state where the evidence was collected.
