Sunday, September 7, 2008

An Open Response to Blogger Albert

"What cause was Demetrius Fannick fired for? The answer is no cause. Just suspicion. Nothing derogatory was proven, only accusations were made and for PPO that was good enough. He himself fired the only attorney Harlow himself had hired."

While as sensational as this may sound, it's simply not correct. Demetrius Fannick was removed from defending Harlow Cuadra due to his previous involvement with Joseph Kerekes. Here's the entire saga to that story (whether you or I agree, or disagree... PA law does trump our opinion):

Demetrius Fannick

"Observe who appointed and who subsequently fired the other attorney's."

In almost all of the cases... it was Judge Ciavarella who appointed counsel, but I'm not sure as to who 'fired' any attorneys (other than perhaphs themselves), since they were all removed due to conflict of interest.

"Whatever reason the State had for firing them would have been adequate reason for not hiring them in the first place. Still that hiring was done by the Stae of Pennsylvania through judical functionary."

To be fair, on every occasion, it was revealed that the conflict existed after-the-fact, usually by the defense attorneys themselves:

Joseph Kerekes Gets New Attorneys
DA: Get Cuadra Outside Counsel
A Potential Conflict Short-Circuts Hearing

"Now PPO wants to claim it is out of his hands? I fully expect this will figure significantly in the appeal process. As I have said so many times, 'Anywhere but Luzerne County.'"

It may very well be out of PPO's hands... and I'm sure it'll be used in the appeal process (assuming Harlow and Joe are found guilty). I mentioned months ago how long it takes for a capital murder trial to go from arraignment to trial... guess they should be happy they're not in N.Y., where it can take as long as 26 months.

"My question as to when and why another Judge was appointed to take over the responsibility of providing adequate representation is absolutely critical to this case. An assumption on yours or anyone's part is pointless, however well informed or intentioned."

Perhaps because that's the laws of PA. I guess my assumption would be no better than yours.

"This was a clearly investigated case. It is a case for the State to lose only by choice. Choices similar to the ones made in the much earlier Kocis case years ago. The investigators did their jobs in spades. The judiciary and the State of Pennsylvania will lose this of their own decision making."

Sounds like an assumption to me. :)

"Who put this other Judge in charge of this small portion of a capital case and under what authority?"

Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. is the president judge, and apparently he's the 'decider'.

Note: I completely respect Albert's concern... so let's all have a friendly debate on the issue(s).