Sunday, November 30, 2008

Two Hearings This Week

What will likely be the busiest week before the trial (newswise)... there are two separate hearings that will take place this week:

The first hearing will be held in Virginia Beach General District Court, where two civil lawsuits were filed against Harlow Cuadra by the City of Virginia Beach Treasurer's Office. These two lawsuits are because of bounced checks/payments that were made last year for personal/business property taxes (the vehicles: Viper, Corvette, Honda, etc...) equaling around $5000. The hearing is scheduled for 12/03/2008 at 8:30 AM. Harlow Cuadra won't be attending, and likely won't even offer a defense.

On Thursday, 12/04/2008 at 9:00 AM, the final suppression hearing will be held in Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas. Prosecutors and defense attorneys will continue testimony on a motion to suppress evidence obtained from Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes’ vehicle on an unrelated RICO case.

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. also wants to discuss objections concerning evidence, including cell phone conversations and conversations between Kerekes and Cuadra in prison... and I'm sure the issue involving attorney Stephen Menn will also be a topic.

I'll post the results of both hearings as soon as they're over, and information becomes available.

Saturday, November 29, 2008

Defendant's Proposed Verdict Slip(s)

Here's a copy of Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' proposed verdict slips, to be filled out by the jury once they've reached their decision:

Harlow Cuadra's Proposed Verdict Slip:
Cuadra Jury 1Cuadra Jury 2Cuadra Jury 3Cuadra Jury 4Cuadra Jury 5Cuadra Jury 6

Joseph Kerekes' Proposed Verdict Slip:
Kerekes Jury 1Kerekes Jury 2Kerekes Jury 3Kerekes Jury 4Kerekes Jury 5Kerekes Jury 6

Thursday, November 27, 2008

Menn Files Petition to Withdraw as Counsel

The Citizens' Voice is reporting that while Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. denied attorney Stephen Menn’s request last Thursday to leave the court-appointed team representing accused killer Harlow Cuadra, he advised Menn against pressing the issue with a written request or an appeal to a higher court.

“You can make any motion you want,” Olszewski said at a hearing on pre-trial motions and scheduling. “My obligation is that fairness prevail over this trial and that this case be tried in a timely and competent manner.”

Menn made the motion on Wednesday, filing a written “Petition to Withdraw as Conflict Counsel” an hour before the Luzerne County Courthouse closed for a two-day Thanksgiving holiday.

Menn, who gave notice two weeks ago that he plans to resign from the county’s conflict counsel pool at the end of the year, said the intense county workload — including five homicide cases — has precluded him from focusing on his private practice in West Pittston.

“(Since August), due to the economic turndown and being a solo practitioner, this attorney advised the president judge that he would be unable to be out of the office for four to six weeks, which is the anticipated time for jury selection, trial and penalty phase,” Menn said in the motion.

Cuadra, 27, and co-defendant Joseph Kerekes, 34, both of Virginia Beach, Va., are accused of fatally stabbing Bryan Kocis, a rival film producer, in Dallas Township in January 2007 and later setting fire to his Midland Drive home.

They face the death penalty and are scheduled to be tried together beginning Jan. 5.

Cuadra and Kerekes were originally scheduled to stand trial beginning Sept. 2, but the removal of two other attorneys, Mark Bufalino and Paul Galante, forced a postponement.

The departure of another attorney would delay the start of the trial for least six more months, Olszewski said last Thursday.

“That’s not going to happen,” Olszewski said.
---

Meanwhile the Times Leader says an attorney for homicide suspect Harlow Cuadra has filed another petition to withdraw as co-counsel from the capital murder case against the Virginia man.

Attorney Stephen Menn filed court papers Thursday asking a judge to withdraw him from the case, citing economic hardship.

Menn said in court papers that Cuadra, 27, has agreed the appointment of a new attorney to represent him in this case would be in his best interest and agreed to sign a waiver to his right to a speedy trial.

Cuadra and co-defendant Joseph Kerekes, 34, are charged with homicide in the January 2007 death of Bryan Kocis, their rival in the gay porn industry. Police said Kocis, 44, was stabbed to death and his Midland Drive home set on fire.

At last week’s pre-trial hearing, Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. denied a petition by Menn to withdraw, stating he wouldn’t further delay the trial. The trial was moved from September to January after two other attorneys were withdrawn from the case. The trial is tentatively scheduled to begin Jan. 5.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Will the Prosecution Accept Their Plea?

While we've all speculated on whether a plea-deal would even be entertained by Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes, I asked the above question to a court insider... here's their answer:

"As a prosecutor, metaphorically speaking, if Melnick sees a clear path to the end zone, why would he even think to kick a field goal? A plea to first degree (pass) or second degree (run) would guarantee the same style result - life in prison (a touchdown) whereas a third degree plea might let them out in 15-20 years (a field goal). In the scheme of Melnick doing his job - and to a greater degree, DA Jackie Musto Carroll keeping hers, going soft on a pair of perceived ruthless killers won't be looked on approvingly by Luzerne County voters. If there's a chance that both or one could walk, a deal might look better for the prosecutors... Perhaps there's something to the idea that one will flip. Kerekes was trying to talk with Cuadra from across the courtroom for several minutes during the hearing last week. Kerekes showed up in his usual prison garb while Cuadra was dudded up like Ira Glass from "This American Life."

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

Harlow and Joe's Proposed Voir Dire

Defendant's Proposed Voir Dire


I. HARDSHIP:

A. We anticipate that the trial in this case may last at least two to three weeks. Would service as a juror in this case impose a substantial hardship on you?

B. Do you suffer from any kind of physical impairment, infirmity or disability which would prevent you from sitting for long periods of time for several weeks and hearing and concentrating on testimony and evidence, or do you have any condition which would impede your service as a juror in this case?

II. PUBLICITY:

A. Have you read, observed or heard anything about the charges or facts of this case from any source, including but not limited to internet, newspaper, radio, television or person?

B. Based upon what you have read, observed or heard, have you discussed what you have learned with any person?

C. Based upon what you have read, observed or heard, have you formed or expressed any opinion as to the facts of the case, the guilt or innocence of the defendants or any sentence that should be imposed?

D. Is the opinion you have formed or expressed one that is firm or resolute in your mind?

E. Is your opinion of such a nature that you will not set it aside unless and until you hear evidence that convinces you that your opinion is wrong?

F. Would you require one or both of the defendants to take the stand and testify in order to change your opinion?

G. Would you disregard the judge’s instruction that the defendants have the right not to testify in their own defense because of the opinion you have formed?

H. Would you disregard the judge’s instruction that the defendants are right now and throughout the trial presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty by the Commonwealth beyond a reasonable doubt because of the opinion you have formed?

I. Because of anything you may have read, observed or heard, would there be any reason you could not be a fair and impartial juror in this case?

III. BIAS RELATING TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION:

The defendants in this case are homosexual. Further, the defendants were partners in a committed homosexual relationship. The victim in this case was also a homosexual. Testimony may be elicited from both the Commonwealth and defense regarding the sexual orientation of both the defendants and the victim. Given those facts:

A. Do you perceive that homosexuals are more or less likely to commit crimes or engage in criminal conduct?

B. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever made a joke about homosexuals?

C. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever referred to homosexuals by using a derogatory term such as “fag,” “queer,” etc?

D. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever felt uncomfortable in the presence of a homosexual, whether in a public facility, metropolitan area or neighborhood?

E. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever avoided situations where contact with homosexuals would be anticipated?

F. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever avoided television or media programs where homosexuals would be depicted simply because of that fact alone?

G. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever commented about the propriety of homosexuals living in committed relationships?

H. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever remarked about or objected to the demonstration of homosexual civil marriage ceremonies?

I. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever refused to associate yourselves with homosexuals?

J. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever commented on a perceived connection between homosexuals and disease including but not limited to HIV and the AIDS virus?

K. Would the fact that homosexuals are accused of killing another homosexual in any way affect your ability to serve as an impartial juror in this case?

L. Would you find the testimony of a homosexual less credible than that of a heterosexual simply because of their sexual orientation?

M. Would the fact that the defendants were in a committed homosexual relationship at the time of the commission of the alleged offense in any way affect your ability to serve as an impartial juror in this case?

N. Has anything ever occurred involving you, a member of your family or close friend which involved a person of homosexual orientation that would in any way create a feeling of animosity or hostility towards either of the defendants?

O. Are you conscious of any prejudice or bias against homosexuals?

P. Are you, any member of your family or close friends a member of any group or organization that advocates against homosexuality?

Q. Would the fact that either defendant may have a homosexual orientation or have a lifestyle different than yours in any way affect your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror in this case?

IV. BIAS RELATING TO HOMOSEXUAL PORNOGRAPHY INDUSTRY:

Both the defendants and the victim in this case were engaged in the production of homosexual pornography. The majority of this business was conducted over the internet. Testimony may be elicited from the Commonwealth and the defendants about the homosexual pornography industry. Given those facts:

A. Do you perceive that people in the pornography industry generally are more likely to commit crimes or to engage in criminal conduct?

B. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever remarked about or objected to the display of homosexual activities through pornographic media?

C. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever remarked about or objected to those who profit from the display of homosexual activities?

D. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever commented on a perceived connection between homosexual pornography and disease including but not limited to HIV and the AIDS virus?

E. Would the fact that the defendants were involved in the homosexual pornography industry in any way affect your ability to be a fair and impartial juror?

F. Are you conscious of any prejudice or bias against those who work in the homosexual pornography business?

G. Do you, members of your family or close friends hold the belief that pornography of any kind generally leads to the degradation of the morals of the individuals involved in the industry and/or society as a whole?

H. Have you, members of your family or close friends ever spoken out against the pornography industry generally?

I. Would you find the testimony of an individual involved in the homosexual pornography industry less credible than that of a heterosexual simply because of their employment?

V. WITNESSES:

The Commonwealth is under a burden to prove each and every element of each and every crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt. They may attempt to do so through the presentation of testimony given by witnesses. The defense is under no burden whatsoever to call any witnesses on their behalf or to take the stand in their own defense. That is because both defendants are presumed innocent and remain innocent unless the jury says otherwise. The only burden in the courtroom is upon the Commonwealth. When witnesses testify, you are to judge their credibility. Given those facts:

A. Is there any reason you could not accept the principles of burden of proof, presumption of innocence and assessment of credibility of witnesses I have just discussed and within that framework sit as a fair and impartial juror?

B. Do you know anyone employed by the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office?

C. Do you know any of the attorneys for the defendants?

D. Do you know any employees of any prosecuting or investigating police agency?

E. The victim in this case is Bryan Kocis of Midland Drive in Dallas, Pennsylvania. Does anyone know Mr. Kocis or any member of his family?

F. The defendants are Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra of Virginia Beach, Virginia. Does anyone know Mr. Kerekes or Mr. Cuadra or any member of their family?

G. The Commonwealth has identified the following individuals who may be called as witnesses to testify on behalf of the prosecution: [ witnesses]. Do you know any of those individuals?

H. Several law enforcement officers from different law enforcement agencies may be called to testify. Would you find the testimony of a police officer more credible simply because he is a police officer?

I. Have you, members of your family or close friends had any law enforcement training or experience?

VI. CIRCUMSTANCES OF CRIME:

The Commonwealth is alleging that the defendants both individually and acting in concert with one another entered Bryan Kocis’ home, killed him by slicing his throat, stabbed his remains 28 times, stole items from his home and set his home on fire. The defendants have pled not guilty. Given these facts:

A. Is there anything about the nature of these allegations which would substantially impair your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror?

B. Given the nature of the factual allegations, do you have any bias or prejudice against either of the defendants because they are charged with committing these acts?

C. Do you favor the prosecution because they are seeking to hold someone responsible
for these acts?

D. Because the defendants are charged with these acts, would you require either or both of them to prove their innocence by testifying and presenting evidence? Would you impose this requirement despite any instruction that the Court would give you that the defendants are presumed innocent, that they do not have to testify or present evidence, that if one or both of them do not testify or present evidence it cannot be held against them and that the Commonwealth must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

E. Because of the nature of the charges, do you have any substantial doubt as to whether you could enter a verdict of not guilty in the event that the Commonwealth does not prove the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt?

F. Are you afraid of either defendant? If so, does this fear substantially impair your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror?

G. If the Commonwealth did not prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, would you nevertheless be reluctant to return a verdict of not guilty simply because you would fear public or community sentiment or opinion regarding your verdict?

H. During jury selection and trial you will observe security and sheriffs deputies in the courtroom. Such security is designed to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in an orderly fashion. Given the fact that security will be in the courtroom, would that in any way substantially impair your ability to sit as a fair and impartial juror?

I. Evidence will be presented that references modern technology, including but not limited to computer forensics, emailing, internet, IP addresses, cellular tower signals, laptop computers and mobile air cards. Are you uncomfortable with such modern technology? Do you lack basic understanding about such technology? If so, would your lack of basic knowledge and/or your discomfort in any way impede your ability to listen to such testimony or cause you to disregard such testimony, thereby impacting your ability to fairly consider all evidence presented?

J. Have you, a member of your family or a close friend been charged with any offense similar to those charged in this case?

L. Have you, a member of your family or a close friend ever witnessed any crimes similar to those charged in this case?

M. Have you, a member of your family or a close friend ever been a victim of a crime similar to those charged in this case?

VII. CONSOLIDATED TRIALS:

The Commonwealth has joined the individual cases against each defendant together for purposes of trial. This means that some evidence that will be presented during this trial that may only pertain to one defendant, and other evidence will be presented that may pertain to both defendants. Nevertheless, you must hear all of the testimony and decide what would be relevant in considering the guilt or innocence of each defendant separately. Given those facts:

A. Do you believe that you would have a substantial problem considering evidence that only relates to one defendant when considering that defendant’s guilt or innocence and not considering it for the other defendant?

B. Do you believe that hearing evidence regarding the separate actions of each defendant would in any way impact your ability to assess the actions of each defendant separately, fairly and impartially?

VIII. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT:

The Commonwealth has charged an open count of Criminal Homicide against each defendant relating to the death of Bryan Kocis. An open count of Criminal Homicide in Pennsylvania encompasses three degrees of murder and two degrees of manslaughter. When an open count is charged, the jury must decide what degree is appropriate, if any. The Commonwealth intends to seek the death penalty if and only if the jury returns a verdict of first degree murder. If a verdict of first degree murder is returned, the Court must conduct a separate hearing after which the jury must decide whether the defendant(s) will be sentenced to death or life imprisonment without parole.

This separate proceeding is only reached upon conviction of first degree murder. If any other verdict is reached, the death penalty is no longer an option. Following the proceeding, the jury actually imposes the sentence. It is more than a recommendation.

During the penalty phase proceeding, the Commonwealth must prove what it considers to be aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt The jury must unanimously find these aggravating circumstances. If they do not, the sentence will be life in prison without parole. The defense may present mitigating evidence such as character, background, mental illness, etc. If the defense presents mitigating evidence, the jury must then weigh the aggravating evidence proven by the Commonwealth against the mitigating evidence presented by the defense. If the aggravators outweigh the mitigators, death is imposed. If the mitigators are equal to or outweigh the aggravators, life without parole is imposed. Given those facts and what you now know about the case:

A. Would you reject evidence or give it little or no weight presented by the defendants regarding character, background, mental health or anything else as mitigation to support a claim that life without parole should be imposed?

B. Would you automatically hold that in a case such as this, the death penalty should be imposed, without regard to the weighing process I have described?

C. Do you believe the death penalty should automatically be imposed every time a person is convicted of first degree murder?

D. If the Commonwealth does not prove one or more aggravators, would you have any problem returning a verdict of life without parole?

E. Can you follow the instructions regarding the weighing process even though if you reach penalty phase you would have been part of the same jury that convicted the defendant(s) of first degree murder?

F. Can you return a verdict of something less than first degree murder or acquit one or both defendants entirely if warranted by law and evidence, even though the Commonwealth is seeking the death penalty for the intentional, premeditated killing of Bryan Kocis?

G. Given the nature of the case, can you perceive of any problem returning a sentence of life without parole in the event that first degree murder is the verdict?

H. Do you have any religious, moral or other objections to the death penalty to such a degree that it would prevent you from sitting as a juror or imposing a sentence of death?

I. Under the law, the death penalty cannot be imposed for an accomplice. In other words, if you find that one defendant was only an accomplice to first degree murder, you will not be required to consider the death penalty against that defendant. Nevertheless, do you believe that the death penalty should be imposed anytime that someone is a mere accomplice to an intentional premeditated murder?

J. Have you ever supported or been a member of any group or organization that advocates in favor of the death penalty?

K. Have you ever opposed, ridiculed or advocated against any group or organization that is against the death penalty?


Respectfully Submitted,

SHELLY L. CENTINI, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes

JOHN PIKE, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Kerekes

STEVEN MENN, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Cuadra

MICHAEL B. SENAPE, ESQ.
Attorney for Defendant Cuadra

Monday, November 24, 2008

Pre-Trial Conference Orders

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.

During last Thursday's pre-trial conference for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. issued the following orders/rules:

  • Final suppression hearing 12/4/08 @ 9:00am.
  • Atty Menn's motion to withdraw is denied.
  • Court rules each deft is allowed 15 peremptory challenges.
  • Court rules comm is allowed 30 peremptory challenges.
  • Any objections to exibits to be filed of record before 12/4/08.

You can view Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.'s original trial management order issued on August 14, 2008 here, and additional information about peremptory challenges can be found here.

Though there's always a remote possibility that there will be another hearing, it would appear that the suppression hearing on 12/04/08 will be the last time Harlow and Joe are in court... that is until the start of jury selection on 01/05/09.

Sunday, November 23, 2008

Harlow and Joe's Jailhouse Gobble Gobble

With Thanksgiving almost upon us (again), and for those of you that weren't fortunate enough to be around last year, I thought I'd re-visit the story of how Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes will be celebrating their 'turkey day' in jail with a traditional-style meal.

A special thanks goes out to AW Langan from Lackawanna County Prison, who was gracious enough to answer my question last year:

"Yes! We try to accommodate the inmates on holidays with a traditional meal. Thanksgiving, Christmas and the 4th of July are probably their favorite meals. They will be given a traditional turkey, mashed potatoes, gravy, etc. meal with a dessert appropriate for the holiday."

While Joe may be staying at Luzerne County Prison, sources tell me that he too, will also enjoy a 'traditional' Thanksgiving meal.

Happy Thanksgiving!

Saturday, November 22, 2008

Jurors May be Polled on Views About Gays

The Times Leader reports that attorneys defending two men charged in the killing of a gay pornographic movie producer are requesting permission to ask potential jurors questions about their views on homosexuality.

Harlow Cuadra, 27, and Joseph Kerekes, 34, both from Virginia Beach, Va., are accused in the January 2007 killing of 44-year-old Bryan Kocis at the victim’s Dallas Township home. Investigators allege they killed Kocis, whom they considered their main rival in the gay porn film industry.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Cuadra and Kerekes, who will be tried together.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Jan. 5 before Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.

Cuadra’s attorneys, Steven Menn and Michael Senape, and Kerekes’ attorneys, Shelley Centini and John Pike, filed on Friday a list of 71 questions they want to ask potential jurors during the selection process.

Of the 71 questions, 26 examine potential juror opinions on homosexuality and pornography, and 11 questions relate to capital punishment.

Other questions refer to the hardship of serving on a jury panel, publicity about the case, criminal histories and relationships with law enforcement, attorneys and witnesses.

Several of the questions the attorneys want to ask potential jurors analyze their opinions about being in the company of homosexuals, if they or anyone they associate with ever joked about homosexuals or used derogatory terms, avoided television and media programs on homosexuality, or ever remarked about or objected to same sex marriages.

Potential jurors will also be asked if they believe pornography of any kind leads to degradation of morals of individuals involved in the industry, or of they would find the testimony of a homosexual less credible than that of a heterosexual.

Witnesses expected to be called by prosecutors include former clients of a Virginia Beach-based escort business that Cuadra and Kerekes operated, a pornographic movie producer and a gay pornographic film actor.

Investigators allege in arrest and court records that Cuadra and Kerekes wanted to film movies with actor Sean Lockhart, who was a contract model for Kocis’ company, Cobra Video.

A civil lawsuit Kocis filed against Lockhart and his business agent, pornography movie producer Grant Roy, prevented Lockhart from working with Cuadra and Kerekes.

During a meeting at a San Diego restaurant that investigators recorded, Cuadra and Kerekes discussed making “under-the-table payments” to Roy and Lockhart to avoid paying Cobra Video, according to arrest and court records.

A pre-trial hearing is set for Dec. 4.

Thursday, November 20, 2008

Judge Denies Attorney's Request to Withdraw from Cuadra Defense Team

The Citizens' Voice reports that Attorney Stephen Menn will not be permitted to withdraw from the defense team representing accused killer Harlow Cuadra, despite his planned resignation from the county's conflict counsel pool, Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. said Thursday.

"The issue for you to resign from your position with the county as conflict counsel and your request to withdraw as counsel on this case are separate and distinct," Olszewski said.

Cuadra and co-defendant Joseph Kerekes are charged with the January 2007 killing of Bryan Kocis in Dallas Township.

Their trial was scheduled to start on Sept. 2, but the withdrawal of two other attorneys, Mark Bufalino and Paul Galante, forced a delay until Jan. 5, 2009.

Another attorney departure would delay the trial at least six more months, Olszewski said.

Menn said he would file a formal motion to withdraw from the case and indicated he could appeal Olszewski's decision to a higher court.

"You can make any motion you want," Olszewski said. "My obligation is that fairness prevail over this trial and that this case be tried in a timely and competent manner."

"All I know is, you're in, you'll continue to be in and I know you'll be prepared and ready to go," Olszewski told Menn.

Update 11/21/08: The Times Leader also carries the story: A Luzerne County judge on Thursday denied an attorney’s request to be withdrawn from the capital murder case of two Virginia men charged in the January 2007 slaying of a Dallas Township man.

At a pre-trial conference held before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr., attorney Stephen Menn said that because he is resigning from the county’s team of conflict counsel attorneys, he wishes to withdraw as co-counsel for murder suspect Harlow Cuadra.

“I will try this case in a timely and competent manner,” Olszewski told Menn. “Any motion (for withdrawal) is denied. I am not stopping this trial from happening on Jan. 5. … I have an obligation to this case, the defendants and the commonwealth.”

Menn said he will decide if he will appeal the ruling before a higher court.

Olszewski said that if he allowed Menn to withdrawal, it would delay the trial at least another six months. “You’re in. You’ll continue to be in, and I know you’ll be prepared for trial,” Olszewski said.

Previously, the trial was scheduled to begin in September but was continued to Jan. 5 after the withdrawal of attorneys Mark Bufalino and Paul Galante.

Cuadra, 27, and his co-defendant and partner, Joseph Kerekes, 34, both of Virginia Beach, are charged with homicide in the January 2007 death of their rival in the gay porn industry, Bryan Kocis, 44. Police said the two killed Kocis and then set his Midland Drive home on fire.

On Thursday, Olszewski also set a hearing date for Dec. 4 for prosecutors and defense attorneys to continue testimony on a motion to suppress evidence obtained from Kerekes’ vehicle on an unrelated Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) case.

The hearing originally began in late September but was put on hold so that Cuadra’s attorneys, Menn and Michael Senape, could enter in a joint motion with Kerekes’ attorneys, John Pike and Shelley Centini.

Evidence seized from both the house and vehicle of Kerekes and Cuadra has been entered as evidence in the homicide case. Pike and Centini say Virginia authorities had no warrant for arrest, and Kerekes didn’t commit any motor vehicle offense that would authorize a traffic stop.

Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick, who is prosecuting the case, said testimony from Detective Matthew Childress, of the Virginia Beach Police Department, needs to be completed, and that he will call an additional witness.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Kerekes and Cuadra if they are convicted.

Olszewski said that at the Dec. 4 hearing objections concerning evidence, including cell phone conversations and conversations between Kerekes and Cuadra in prison, will be discussed.

Olszewski said the trial should last about two weeks.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Jumping Ship?

Ever since Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes were brought to Pennsylvania to stand trial for the brutal murder of Bryan Kocis, they seem to have lost attorneys' faster than their prison-issued underwear:

October 13, 2007: Jonathan Blum & Al Flora Jr. - attorneys' for Joseph Kerekes.

July 9, 2008: Mark Bufalino and Paul Galante - Bufalino was an attorney for Kerekes, Galante for Cuadra.

November 15, 2008: Stephen Menn, an attorney for Harlow Cuadra.

After all that's happened... Joseph Kerekes still has two attorneys... but if Menn is allowed to leave, Harlow Cuadra may be left with only one attorney that's familiar with this case.

There appears to be something seriously wrong with this picture.

Saturday, November 15, 2008

Harlow's Attorney to Resign From Conflict Counsel Pool

The Citizen's Voice is reporting that attorney Stephen Menn, a member of the court-appointed teams defending accused killers Hugo Selenski and Harlow Cuadra, gave notice Thursday that he will resign from the Luzerne County conflict counsel pool at the end of the year.

Menn, a member of the conflict pool since 1998, said last week he had grown frustrated with the system and the intense workload, which included simultaneously handling five homicide cases.

Menn, who also maintains a private practice in West Pittston and is the solicitor for Wyoming Borough, declined to comment when reached by telephone Friday and did not return telephone messages left at his office and his home later in the day.

Luzerne County District Attorney Jackie Musto Carroll said she had heard about Menn’s discontent with the system and murmurs that he was considering resigning.

“I’m sorry to hear that he did,” Musto Carroll said Friday.

Paul McGarry, the director of court administrative services, said Friday he was unaware of Menn’s resignation but that “it could be in the system somewhere” and had not yet reached his office.

President Judge Mark A. Ciavarella Jr. runs the conflict counsel system and will ultimately be responsible for accepting Menn’s resignation and hiring a replacement, McGarry said. Ciavarella did not return telephone messages Friday. The conflict counsel pool is a group of publicly funded attorneys assigned to cases when a defendant is unable to retain a private attorney and a public defender cannot be used because of a conflict of interest with another defendant or a witness.

Each of the 11 members of the pool earn an annual salary of $26,946.86 and full health benefits, according to county payroll records.

Menn, Pike, Mark Bufalino and Paul Galante are the only members of the conflict pool certified to handle death penalty cases like Selenski’s and Cuadra’s. The lead counsel on all death penalty cases must be certified under guidelines established by the state Supreme Court in 2003, Pike said.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Where's the Third Attorney?

With less than 2 months to go before the trial is scheduled to start, Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes still don't have their replacement attorney(s).

If you'll recall, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. agreed to dismiss Mark Bufalino, who represented Joseph Kerekes, and Galante, who represented Harlow Cuadra, because the two attorneys requested to be withdrawn from the case in July, due to a conflict that they both work in the same private law firm.

Possible replacements include the five attorneys left in the conflict counsel pool: Brian Corcoran, Joseph Cosgrove, Samuel Falcone Jr., Matthew Kelly and Gerald Wassil.

Olszewski asked President Judge Mark A. Ciavarella in July to appoint attorneys to fill the vacancies created by the removal of Bufalino and Galante, and as of now... no attorneys have been assigned.

Time certainly doesn't seem to be of the essence... I sure hope this doesn't wind up causing another trial delay.

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

Harlow's Not Giving Up...

To give a little background of what I'm talking about, I'm re-posting a story that I did on July 15, 2008:

"Last Wednesday, Harlow Cuadra’s remaining attorneys, Stephen Menn and Michael Senape, filed a motion to suspend all pre-trial proceedings in Luzerne County Court until the state Superior Court determines whether it will accept a petition requesting a review of Olzsewski’s March 19 order barring Cuadra from retaining defense attorney Demetrius Fannick.

While we already know that PPO
denied their motion to suspend, the State Superior Court has just ruled that they have denied Harlow's petition for review. So this little issue is now over, at least until after the trial."
----

Update 11/11/08: Well maybe not... I just noticed today that Harlow Cuadra has appealed the Fannick decision all the way to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania (it was actually filed on 08/14/2008), here's a copy of the docket:



While no decision has been made yet, I can't help but think they'll likely follow the previous rulings of PPO and the Superior Court, but I guess you can't blame Harlow for trying.

Monday, November 10, 2008

Some Interesting 'Nuggets'...

The 'nuggets' I've heard aren't all completely verified, but I'm working on tying some of it together:

1. Before the trial is set to start, prosecutors are going to take another run at Cuadra and Kerekes for a plea bargain - guilty pleas in exchange for life in prison. Prosecutors don't want Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes coming to them in the late stages of a costly trial, asking for mercy and a plea bargain when it appears they are headed for a conviction and the death penalty.

2. The trial is expected to cost in excess of $125,000-$250,000. That's an estimate based on past large-scale trials (the folks I spoke to weren't too specific). Think about it, though. Flying in all of the witnesses and paying for their accommodations and meals, utilizing the experts and evidence analysis, plus the amount of time prosecutors and investigators must devote to the case.

3. The prosecution bill does not include investigatory costs, such as the seven trips to Virginia Beach made by Pennsylvania State Police, the Black's Beach undercover operation, etc. (Speaking of which, apparently one of the theories about how the nude beach conversation was recorded included the use of a Naval destroyer and an AWACS plane).

4. The focus of any penalty phase in the case would center on the two Dallas Township firefighters, who nearly died fighting the fire that Cuadra and Kerekes allegedly set at Bryan Kocis' home after the murder. This allows prosecutors to minimize the flaws in Kocis' character, including his ties to pornography and his previous brush with the law, while accentuating the threat to firefighters in a substantially more sensitive post-9/11 environment.

5. Unless they're hiding something, prosecutors seem to be convinced Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart were not involved in the Kocis killing. They point to Cuadra and Kerekes exculpating Roy and Lockhart in the Crab Catchers' and Black's Beach tapes. One of the prosecutor's even argued that in those six hours of tape, there was ample opportunity for Cuadra and Kerekes to implicate Roy and Lockhart, but they never took advantage.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Could We Still See a Plea?

I really hate to 're-use' a post... but KM brought up a good point last year:


What are the chances that before this case is over, either Mr. Cuadra or Mr. Kerekes (or both) will throw in the towel and just plead guilty to the charges? The short answer would be, “mighty high,” if only because that’s what most defendants do.

A video from the Criminal Justice channel has some basic information. But what makes a proper plea bargain? Well, it has two parts: the information and the waiver. Both are required.

First, the client has to know what he’s doing. He has to be represented by counsel, and has to be informed of all the consequences incumbent with his plea.

Next, he has to voluntarily waive certain of his rights. In effect, a plea bargain is like a supercharged version of that Miranda waiver that police try to get bad guys to sign so that they might be questioned. Only in this instance, the defendant is essentially waiving his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination in toto.

If proof of one of the two elements is missing, the judge will throw out the plea deal. That’s right, before it’s done, the whole thing has to go before the trial judge to get him or her to sign off. The judge is under no legal compulsion to agree to the deal.

In practice, however, plea agreements are seldom invalidated by the bench. The agreements do get breeched from time to time—usually because prosecutors find out that the defendant lied about something during the course of plea negotiations.

Now, there is also a special sort of guilty plea that pops up very rarely: the Alford plea. That’s a plain, old guilty plea with a twist: the defendant does not admit guilt. In all other ways— in sentencing, as a record of previous bad acts in subsequent trials, as a criminal step toward Habitual Offender status— the Alford plea is just like a standard guilty plea. It's also peculiar and passingly infrequent.


Finally, there’s the plea that uniquely splits the difference between guilty and not guilty: No contest (AKA nolo contendere, among the guys who took Latin in prep school to boost their SAT Verbals.)

A defendant who pleads ‘no contest’ is basically refusing to put up a legal fight. In essence, he gets treated thereafter just as if he had pleaded guilty, except the plea “is in no way an admission of guilt and [differs from an Alford plea in that] it cannot be introduced in future trials as evidence of incorrigibility. Nevertheless, courts do not have to accept a plea of nolo contendere, and usually do not, except in certain nonviolent cases.” [*]

-KM

Saturday, November 8, 2008

The Pre-Paid Mobile Telephone

I was spending some time going over a previous post that I did about the Affidavit in Support of Application for Search Warrant, and just so happened to notice this little gem:

"The telephone number of 570-579-4437 was listed as having called the victim’s telephone number from January 22nd through January 24th, 2007. Information was requested from Verizon Wireless for information related to this number. The results of this request did not reveal a subscriber because it was a pre-paid mobile telephone. The telephone was activated on January 22nd, 2007 and the first calls were made from the Newport News area, which Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. knows to be within the Commonwealth of Virginia. This area is within several miles of the CUADRA residence. The last call was made on January 24, 2007, shortly before the homicide of the victim. Said call originated from the Pittston area, which Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. knows to be within Northeastern Pennsylvania, which is within several miles of the victim’s residence."



The "570" area-code happens to be for the Wilkes-Barre/Scranton area. Now I don't know much about pre-paid mobile phones, but isn't it a little odd that Harlow Cuadra and/or Joseph Kerekes would be able to buy a phone in Virginia with a Pennsylvania area-code, not to mention the exact same one as the victim's?

I also find it odd that the phone was activated in Newport News, Virginia... it's well over 20 miles from Harlow and Joe's house. What makes this even stranger is that in the Affidavit of Probable Cause, it states:

"The initial phone call was placed on 01/22/07 at approx. 19:26 hrs, and was relayed from a cellular tower located on Bells Road, Virginia Beach, VA."

Now I guess this could mean that the phone was actually activated while they were in their vehicle on the way home, and that the first call to Bryan Kocis was made after they got home... who knows?

I'm beginning to wonder if Harlow and/or Joe went up to Pennsylvania before the infamous murder trip, bought the throw-away phone while they were up there doing "recon work" (would make it look like Harlow really was in PA when calling Bryan), and activated it while on their way back to Virginia Beach. Interstate-64 also happens to run through Newport News, and as Joe mentioned previously... that was the way he'd traveled to PA in the past.

Hmm...

Update: After reviewing the steps it takes to activate a Verizon Wireless prepaid phone, it's just as likely Harlow and Joe bought the phone in Virginia.

Update 2: I've noticed a few discrepancies between what Cpl. Leo Hannon states, and what the Affidavit of Probable Cause says. Perhaps it's no big deal, but it does make you wonder why the difference in locations.

Sunday, November 2, 2008

Affidavit in Support of Application for Search Warrant

This was originally entered as an exhibit by the defense, during their joint reply to the DA's brief in opposition to suppress search warrant & evidence seized from the residence. Though it's a bit old now, it's interesting to see what Cpl. Leo Hannon had to say in his own words (not to mention the things not listed in the affidavit of probable cause).

While I originally touched on this subject in a post back in July... here's the full text:

THE MATERIAL FACTS CONSTITUTING PROBABLE CAUSE ThAT THE SEARCH SHOULD BE MADE ARE:

Bryan Kocis House

On January 24, 2007, at approx 2030 hrs., the Dallas Twp Fire Department was dispatched to 60 Midland Drive, Dallas Township, Luzerne County, Pa. for the report of a structure fire involving a residential dwelling. Subsequently, Trooper Ronald JAROCHA, Pennsylvania State Police Troop P Fire Marshal, was requested to respond to the scene, as a male victim, Bryan Charles KOCIS, was found to be deceased within the home. He was located on a couch in close proximity to the front exit door. Based upon interviews with witnesses in the area of KOCIS’s home, investigators learned that an unknown individual and an unknown vehicle was observed near the KOCIS residence immediately prior to the victims death and ensuing fire.

Upon further investigation, it was observed that the victim was stabbed multiple times with a cutting instrument. Upon initial assessment, there were no signs of a struggle and/or defensive wounds.

On January 25, 2007, an autopsy of the victim’s body commenced at Wilkes Barre General Hospital Morgue. Autopsy was conducted by Forensic Pathologist Dr. Mary PASCUCCI and was attended by Luzerne County Coroner Dr. Jack CONSALVO. Their examination of the victim’s body revealed that the victim suffered twenty-eight stab-type wounds to his body/torso, and one slash type wound to his neck. The slash type neck wound severed the victim’s hyoid bone, trachea, left carotid artery, and left jugular vein. There was no evidence illustrating that the victim was alive at the time of the fire. Dr. CONSALVO determined the cause of death to be multiple stab wounds/slash wound to the victim’s neck and the manner of death was ruled to be criminal homicide.

Further investigation by Trooper JAROCHA determined that the fire at the victim’s residence commenced within its interior. Additionally, it was determined that the exterior door of the residence was open at the time of the fire. The investigators found no indication of forced entry to the residence. The origin of said fire was the rear of a living room couch, to which there was no explainable ignition source. Trooper JAROCHA ruled the cause of the fire to be arson. Additionally, a folding-style knife was found to be open and in the area of the origin of said arson fire.

Due to the lack of defensive wounds to the victim, and the fact that the exterior door of the residence was open at the time of the fire, the suggestion is present that the victim may have had a personal association with his assailant(s). As such, the victim may have had telephone contact or email contact with said assailant(s) at some point prior to his death.

Interviews with the victim’s family and personal associates additionally revealed that the victim was extremely private with regard to his residence, and would not permit unannounced visitors to enter under any circumstances.

Investigators interviewed Attorney Sean Macias (XXXX XXXXX XXXXX Drive Suite XXX Los Angeles Ca., Telephone XXX XXX XXXX) who represented Brian Kocis in a lawsuit that was ongoing at the time of Kocis’s death. According to Attorney Maclas, the lawsuit was filed in Federal Court under case number 06 CV 0293J. In the lawsuit, Kocis’s company, Cobra Video, was suing Sean Lockhart, Grant Roy and LSG Media; The lawsuit alleged systematic infringement and misappropriation of Kocis’ property rights regarding the Pennsylvania Trademark of the name Brent Corrigan. Kocis ownd and distributes Adult Male Gay entertainment via DVD/video sales and provides adult material through its websites, www.corbravideo.com and www.brentcorriganxxx.com. One of the primary models for Kocis’ company was Sean Lockhart AKA Brent Corrigan. In the lawsuit, it is alleged that Sean Lockhart developed a new business relationship with LSG Media; which is a partnership between Sean Lockhart, Grant Roy and Lee Bergeron. A review of court documents reveals that during 2006 there were a number of depositions taken in furtherance of the aforementioned lawsuit.

During the week of January 15, 2007, Kocis traveled to California to confer with his Attorney regarding the pending lawsuit and a potential settlement. Attorney Macias advised that on January 19, 2007 a settlement was reached. This settlement allegedly gave Lockhart and his associates only seven days to complete certain agreements or would have to pay an additional settlement cost. The settlement further called for Lockhart to remove all negative “blogs” regarding Kocis. Lockhart additionally agreed to provide and release medical records to Kocis. Additionally, Kocis would retain all rights to the name “Brent Corrigan” for a period of time, and would thereafter receive a percentage of gross proceeds from website and DVD sales.

The investigation also revealed that Sean Lockhart, a/k/a Brent Corrigan, created his own website known as “brentcorriganonline.com,” in violation of contractual agreements between the victim and Lockhart. Several biographical entries found on the website as well as other various blog sites illustrate strong feelings of personal animosity on the part of Lockhart toward Brian Kocis. Additionally, subsequent investigation revealed that Lockhart held a desire to be credited as a director, and additionally wished to hold responsibility for his own career decisions, which he believed was impeded by Kocis. Also according to said writings, Lockhart believed that he had been “manipulated” by Kocis, and was taken advantage of due to his young age and naivety with regard to the adult entertainment industry.

Sergeant Douglas Higgins, Dallas Township Police Department, Dallas, Pennsylvania, advised Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. that he interviewed Benjamin Gilbert of Palmdale, California. Gilbert advised that he associated with Sean Lockhart and they last had contact in October 2006 Gilbert recalled that Lockhart had spoken about getting rid of Bryan Kocis; that he hated Kocis; and that Kocis had ruined his life. Gilbert also referred to a friend of Lockhart known as Grant who stated he wanted to find a “cleaner” to take care of Kocis. Gilbert overheard Lockhart telling Grant not to talk about that in front of people you don’t know. Gilbert further advised that Grant is in love with Lockhart and would do anything for Lockhart.

Detective Daniel Beky, Luzeme County District Attorney’s Office, Wilkes-Barre, Pa, advised Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. that he on January 25, 2007, he interviewed Robert Wagner; a close friend of Bryan Kocis. Wagner stated that Kocis possessed and utilized a number of computers at his residence. Wagner further indicated that Kocis contacted and corrmuuiicated with other individuals involved in his private life, his private homosexual activity, and homosexual video pornography productions through hs computer email system. Wagner further stated that on January 21, 2007, he had observed two computer towers; a Dell and an EMachine at the residence. Following the homicide, Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. observed that the both computer towers referenced by Wagner were missing, yet the associated hardware such as the monitors, keyboards and connecting cables were present. In Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr.’s opinion, the absence of the computer towers suggests that they may have been removed at the time of the murder. It is also noted that the search of the residence indicates that only a select number of other items were missing, inclusive of a Rolex watch, which according to the victim’s family members held significant sentimental value to the victim.

Robert Wagner

Wagner advised that on or about January 22, 2007, Kocis forwarded a picture to Wagner that depicted a white male model, allegedly from the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area. Kocis indicated to Wagner that the male model was scheduled to visit his residence on the evening of January 24, 2007; the day the victim was murdered.

Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. was advised by Corporal Mark Filarsky, Pennsylvania State Police, that on Monday, January 29, 2007, at approximately 10:29 a.m., he contacted Alex Puente, telephone number: (XXX) XXX-XXXX. Mr. Puente is the Webmaster for Cobra Video.com. It should be noted that the deceased, Bryan Kocis, utilized the e mail account Kingcobra@cobravideo.com. Puente was asked to provide e-mail messages from Bryan Kocis’ Cobra Video account during the last four days of his life. Puente indicated that on January 24, 2007, at 2:23 p.m., an e-mail message was sent by the victim to Sean Lockhart, which stated in part that the victim was expecting a male model to arrive at his residence this date. On Monday, January 22, 2007, at 10:18 a.m., a male model application, containing the bio of Danny Moilin, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, was forwarded to Kocis’ e-mail account. Moilin utilized the e-mail address of DMBOTTOMPA@YAHOO.COM. The bio included several photographs of the male model applicant. A comparison was made of these Moilin photos and the photos Kocis sent to Robert Wagner of the individual who would be visiting on the evening of the murder. The photos appear to depict the same person.

On February 2, 2007, the Pennsylvania State Police released a photograph attached to the Danny Moilin application to the local and national media outlets. On February 3, 2007, Trooper Lisa A. BROGAN spoke to Ryan ANDERSON of Norfolk, Virginia. ANDERSON stated that a friend of his once worked for the person in the photo. ANDERSON stated the unidentified male is Harlow CUADRA from Virginia Beach, Virginia. ANDERSON stated CUADRA is a gay male model and a paid escort. ANDERSON stated that one could view Harlow CUADRA via his MySpace Profile: www.myspace.com/harlowcuadra. CUADRA is part owner of a gay pornography websites; www.Boybatter.com and www.Boisrus.com. CUADRA operates a male escort service and website referred to as www.norfolkmaleescorts.com. ANDERSON also forwarded two photos to Trooper BROGAN. ANDERSON advised both photos were posted on Harlow CUADRA’s MySpace page. ANDERSON stated that Harlow CUADRA and Sean LOCKHART, aka Brent Corrigan, were in Las Vegas for the Adult Video Convention and the photo was taken at Le Cirque; a restaurant located within the Bellagio Hotel. ANDERSON did not know who took the photo, but was familiar with Le Cirque; jackets and ties are required. ANDERSON added that “Trent” (stage name) is partners with Harlow CUADRA in the escort business. ANDERSON stated CUADRA and Trent were former lovers but CUADRA left Trent for Sean LOCKHART. ANDERSON did not know Trent’s real name but thought his first name may be “Joe”.

Trooper BROGAN advised Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. that on February 3, 2007, she accessed MySpace.com and located Harlow CUADRA’s Internet Account. CUADRA’s profile with screen name Hardcore Harlow appeared with a photograph and a caption which reads: “Hey Guys, Harlow’s my name and porn is my game!”. One of the photos appear to be a copy of the photo the victim, Bryan KOCIS, had forwarded to his friend, Robert WAGNER, two days prior to the homicide of KOCIS wherein KOCIS advised WAGNER that the photo is a male model he was going to meet with on January 24,2007. A photo in CUADRA’s My Space Account depicts Sean LOCKHART; aka Brent CORRIGAN, posing with Harlow CUADRA at Le Cirque in Las Vegas, Nevada. The photo is captioned as follows: “Brent & I @ Le Cirque, Las Vegas!”.

Harlow and Sean

Based on the above, the Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center obtained information relating to Harlow CUADRA. Intelligence analysts identified Harlow Raymond CUADRA as having a date of birth of August 5, 1981. Motor vehicle records also establish that the same Harlow CUADRA depicted on My Space account as Hardcore Harlow is the same person identified through a Virginia driver license photo as Harlow CUADRA and also the same person expected by the victim, Bryan KOCIS, to visit on the evening of his death.

Additional Information provided Pennsylvania Criminal Intelligence Center lists businesses associated with CUADRA as: norfolkmaleescorts.com; boybatter.com and men4rent.com. The name, Joe KEREKES, is listed as an associate of CUADRA. KEREKES address is the same as CUADRA: 1028 Stratem Court, Virginia Beach VA 23451.

Harlow and Joe's House

On February 3, 2007, Trooper Brogan spoke to one Michael WAHL, who resides in Yorktown, Virginia. WAHL stated he heard about the murder of Bryan KOCIS on website, www.gay.com. He was reading about the murder on several other websites and immediately knew the identity of the male subject. WAHL stated that the name of the person in the photo was “Harlow”. WAHL was unsure of his last name but thought it was DRAKE. WAHL stated that Harlow is well known in the gay community where he lives. WAHL stated that a former friend of his used to model with Harlow. WAHL stated Harlow and his business partner Joseph KEREKES operate an illegal escort service and produce gay pornography. KEREKES also does some modeling; using the stage names of “Trent” or “Travis”. WAHL believed Joe and Harlow were involved intimately, but broke up over Sean LOCKHART; aka Brent Corrigan. WAHL stated Harlow was going to leave KEREKES for LOCKHART. Harlow and Sean LOCKHART were supposedly going to make a movie together.

On February 6, 2007, Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. reviewed email messages between the victim and Danny Moilin received from America Online from the victim's email account known as “Cobravideo@aol.com”. The email messages show that Bryan Kocis had arranged a meeting with Danny Moilin for January 24, 2007, In one of the emails dated January 24, 2007, at 3:43 PST, Danny wrote: “good morning, I have to take my dad a few things to center city then I will be free....so if you want to meet up earlier, that would be great! I am real excited about meeting and hangin with you Danny”

Kocis wrote in an email to Danny the following: “Hi Danny, I have a few meetings later this afternoon so 1 was thinking about 7-8 PM to have you here. I guess you’ll bring an overnight bag and don’t forget those two Ids. My address is 60 Midland Drive Dallas PA 18612”

In response, Danny wrote in a message dated January 24, 2007, at 10:17 PST, “ok... see you around 7:15 depending on traffic Thanks Danny :-)~”

On January 29th 2007 a search warrant was served on America Online Inc. (AOL) of 22000 AOL Way, Dulles Va. for the email content and subscriber information for the victims email accounts of cobravideo.com and kingcobra@aol.com. The results of this warrant indicate that the victim was in communication with an unknown individual using the email address of dmbottompa@yahoo.com from January 22nd through January 24th, 2007 where the communications indicated that a person was scheduled to meet the victim in the evening hours of January 24 2007, near the time of the homicide. One of the IP addresses associated with the dmbottompa@yahoo.com email address is 70.174.54.38 on 22JAN2007 12:23:28 (-0600).Central Time.

A search of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) was conducted which indicated that the IP address was issued/assigned by Cox Communications Inc. of 1400 Lake Hearn Drive, Atlanta Ga 30319 PH: XXX-XXX-XXXX.

Information was requested from Cox Communications Inc. to provide the subscriber information related to the listed IP address.

The result of this request indicates the account and subscriber information that matches the residence of Harlow CUADRA, which indicates that the computer systems used to communicate through emails with the victim are likely to be located at that residence, previously illustrated herein.

Also, a search warrant was issued for Yahoo Inc. to provide IP connection log information related to the email address of dmbottompa@yahoo.com. The results of this warrant show there were numerous captures of the IP address at logon of 70.1 0.229.19 one of the dates and times being 01/24/2007 at 15:08:29 hrs GMT.

A search of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) was conducted which indicated that the IP address was issued/assigned by Sprint PCS.

Information was then requested from Sprint for the subscriber for several IP addresses and date ranges associated with the dmbottompa@yahoo.com email account.

The result of this request indicated that the subscriber that was assigned the IP address listed above, and several others, was Harlow CUADRA. These IP addresses were associated with a Sprint wireless air card designed for Internet access and mobile use.

The telephone number of 570-579-4437 was listed as having called the victim’s telephone number from January 22nd through January 24th, 2007. Information was requested from Verizon Wireless for information related to this number. The results of this request did not reveal a subscriber because it was a pre-paid mobile telephone. The telephone was activated on January 22nd, 2007 and the first calls were made from the Newport News area, which Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. knows to be within the Commonwealth of Virginia. This area is within several miles of the CUADRA residence. The last call was made on January 24, 2007, shortly before the homicide of the victim. Said call originated from the Pittston area, which Cpl. Leo D. HANNON Jr. knows to be within Northeastern Pennsylvania, which is within several miles of the victim’s residence.

On 02/09/07 Cpl. Mark FILARSKY and Cpl. Gerald WILLIAMS interviewed Grant Roy who was in the presence of his counsel, Attorney Ezekiel CORTEZ. This interview was conducted via teleconference. The following is a synopsis of ihe interview; I was surfing ihe internet looking for models in anticipation of the settlement of the lawsuit with Bryan KOCIS. That is when I came across Harlow. I sent 1 or 2 emails via his web site. I never heard back from him but Sean LOCKHART did. I was informed by Sean that Harlow was looking to work with us. I asked Sean if he was coming to Las Vegas for the convention and Sean said he wasn’t. I told Sean to call him and tell him to come to Vegas.

Grant Roy

We did meet with Harlow and his friend Joe who goes by the stage name Trent. Harlow was in the Navy and Joe was in the Marines. They have been a couple for about the last 6 years. We were at dinner one night in Vegas when we were discussing the possibility of trading scenes but I informed them that we could not do anything at this point because of the pending litigation with Bryan KOCIS. Harlow then asked what if Bryan left the country, Sean said that He would only come back. Joe then said that Harlow knows someone that would do anything for him. Harlow then asked what if Bryan went to Canada. Sean had a few drinks in him and I don’t think he understood what Harlow was saying. I looked at Harlow and knew that he was talking about getting rid of him (killing him). I grabbed Harlow by the knee and told him no, we don’t need Bryan to leave the country. This conversation took place while in Las Vegas for a gay porn convention during the week of January 15th to the 19th 2007.

On 01/25/07 sometime during the morning hours Pacific Time, Sean told me that he received a call on his cell phone from Harlow while he was at work. Harlow told him to go the WNEP web site. Sean went to the web site while he was still on the phone with Harlow. Sean saw the information about the death of Bryan and became upset. Harlow told Sean “I guess my guy went overboard”. Sean had to leave work early and come home.

Since this investigation is continuing, disclosure of the search warrant, this affidavit, and/or this application and the attachments thereto will seriously jeopardize the progress of the investigation. Accordingly, I request that the Court issue an order that the search warrant, this affidavit in support of application for search warrant, the application for search warrant, and all attachments thereto be filed under seal until further order of this Court.