Down to the Home Stretch...

With only 12 days to go until Harlow Cuadra's trial is scheduled to begin... there's just one last ruling we're waiting for: will Judge Peter Paul Olszewski allow or deny the motion to suppress evidence seized from the BMW, when Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes were arrested in Virginia Beach?

I spoke with someone last week about this very subject, figuring it would be soon... their response:

' He is a very very busy man these days... He has 2 weeks of criminal trials starting monday followed by this case and in addition he has a daunting civil docket, not to mention his new duties with the county commisioners to decide layoffs. He might keep you waiting '.

Thankfully, we don't have that much longer to wait.

Meanwhile... I'll continue to work on my ' Witnesses Explained ' post.

Motion to Pay Expert Psychiatrist Invoice

(click image below to enlarge):

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2009. Upon receipt and review of the attached Motion to Pay Expert Psychiatrist Invoice, it is hereby ORDERED AND DIRECTED that:

1. The Luzerne County Controller approve the payment of the Invoice, attached as “Exhibit 2” to the Motion, in the amount of $1920.00; and

2. The Luzerne County Treasurer issue a check payable to “Richard E. Fischbein, M.D., XXXXXXX XXXXXXXX, X XXXXX, XXX XXXXXXX XXX., XXXXXXXX, PA XXXXX” in the amount of $1920.00 for services rendered, representing payment in full.

BY THE COURT:

Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.

MOTION TO PAY EXPERT CRIMINOLOGIST INVOICE

The defendant, Joseph Manuel Kerekes (“Mr. Kerekes”), by and through his counsel, Shelley L. Centini, Esq. and John Pike, Esq. Court-Appointed Conflict Counselors for Luzerne County, respecttully requests this Court to Order payment of psychiatric evaluation invoice and represents as follows:

1. Mr. Kerekes is an adult individual presently incarcerated and serving a life sentence after pleading guilty to second degree murder and other offenses an December 8, 2008.

2. On May 15, 2007 Mr. Kerekes was charged by Criminal Complaint with the following offenses: Criminal Homicide (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 2501 (a)), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Homicide (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)), Liability for the Conduct of Another/Complicity (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 306(B)(3)(ii)), Arson and Related Offenses—Recklessly endangering (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3301(a)(1)(i)), Arson and Related Offenses—Inhabited Building (Title 16 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3301 (a)(1)(ii)), Burglary (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3502(a)), Robbery (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3701 (a)(1)(i)), Theft by Unlawful Taking (Title 18 Pa.CS. Sec. 3921 (a)), Tampering with Physical Evidence (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 491 0(1)), Abuse of Corpse (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5510), Conspiracy to Commit Burglary (Title 18 Pa.C Sec. 903(a)(1)), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Tampering with Physical Evidence (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)), and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Arson—Recklessly endangering (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)).

3. On October 1, 2007 the Commonwealth filed their Notice of Aggravating Circumstances, advising that they intended to seek the death penalty against Mr. Kerekes.

4. In preparation for jury trial and/or penalty phase, on August 19, 2008 this Court approved counsel’s request to engage additional services of Richard M. Fischbein, M.D. for four hours at $1920.00 for additional work on the defendant’s case. S Order attached as “Exhibit I.“

5. On December 9, 2008, Dr. Fischbein sent his bill to counsel. The bill totals $1920.00 See Invoice attached as “Exhibit 2.”

6. Conflict counsel are appointed by the Court to defendants who qualify for representation by the Public Defender’s Office because of their indigency but whom the Public Defender’s Office cannot represent given a conflict of interest.

7. As of the date of this Petition, the undersigned is aware of no substantial change in the defendant’s financial condition since the court appointment of counsel. The defendant is unable to pay the fees and costs associated with the psychiatric evaluation from his own funds.

8. The engagement of Dr. Fischbein was essential to a fair trial and to the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel and due process and equal protection of law as guaranteed by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order directing that the Luzerne County Controller approve payment of the Invoice attached in the amount of $1920.00 and directing the Luzerne County Treasurer to issue a check payable to “Richard E. Fischbein, M.D.” in the amount of $1920.00 as payment in full of the attached invoice.

Respectfully Submitted,

SHELLEY L. CENTINI, ESQ.
Conflict Counsel for Defendant

Motion to Pay Expert Criminologist Invoice

(click image below to enlarge):

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2009, upon receipt and review of the affached Motion to Pay Expert Criminologist Invoice, it is hereby ORDERED AND DIRECTED that:

1. The Luzerne County Controller approve the payment of the Invoice, attached as “Exhibit 2” to the Motion, in the amount of $400.00; and

2. The Luzerne County Treasurer issue a check payable to “Robert Johnson, Ph.D., XXXX XXXXX XXXXX XXXXX, XXXXX, VA XXXXX” in the amount of $400.00 for services rendered, representing payment in full.

BY THE COURT:

Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.

MOTION TO PAY EXPERT CRIMINOLOGIST INVOICE

The defendant, Joseph Manuel Kerekes (“Mr. Kerekes”), by and through his counsel, Shelley L. Centini, Esq. and John Pike, Esq. Court-Appointed Conflict Counselors for Luzerne County, respecttully requests this Court to Order payment of criminologist invoice and represents as follows:

1. Mr. Kerekes is an adult individual presently incarcerated and serving a life sentence after pleading guilty to second degree murder and other offenses an December 8, 2008.

2. On May 15, 2007 Mr. Kerekes was charged by Criminal Complaint with the following offenses: Criminal Homicide (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 2501 (a)), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Homicide (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)), Liability for the Conduct of Another/Complicity (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 306(B)(3)(ii)), Arson and Related Offenses—Recklessly endangering (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3301(a)(1)(i)), Arson and Related Offenses—Inhabited Building (Title 16 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3301 (a)(1)(ii)), Burglary (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3502(a)), Robbery (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3701 (a)(1)(i)), Theft by Unlawful Taking (Title 18 Pa.CS. Sec. 3921 (a)), Tampering with Physical Evidence (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 491 0(1)), Abuse of Corpse (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5510), Conspiracy to Commit Burglary (Title 18 Pa.C Sec. 903(a)(1)), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Tampering with Physical Evidence (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)), and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Arson—Recklessly endangering (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)).

3. On October 1, 2007 the Commonwealth filed their Notice of Aggravating Circumstances, advising that they intended to seek the death penalty against Mr. Kerekes.

4. In preparation for jury trial and/or penalty phase, on November 20, 2008 this Court approved counsel’s request to engage the services of Dr. Robert Johnson as defendant’s expert criminologist at a rate not to exceed $5000.00 for work on the defendant’s case. Order attached as “Exhibit I.”

5. On December 17, 2008, Dr. Johnson sent his bill to counsel. The bill totals $400.00. Invoice attached as “Exhibit 2.”

6. Conflict counsel are appointed by the Court to defendants who qualify for representation by the Public Defender’s Office because of their indigency but whom the Public Defender’s Office cannot represent given a conflict of interest.

7. As of the date of this Petition, the undersigned is aware of no substantial change in the defendant’s financial condition since the court appointment of counsel. The defendant is unable to pay the fees and costs associated with the expert criminologist from his own funds.

8. The engagement of Dr. Johnson was essential to a fair trial and to the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel and due process and equal protection of law as guaranteed by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

WHEREFORE, the defendant respecifully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order directing that the Luzerne County Controller approve payment of the Invoice attached in the amount of $400.00 and directing the Luzerne County Treasurer to issue a check payable to “Robert Johnson, Ph.D.” in the amount of $400.00 as payment in full of the attached invoice.

Respectfully Submitted,

SHELLEY L. CENTINI, ESQ.
Conflict Counsel for Defendant

Motion to Pay Computer Forensic Expert Invoice

This story was originally mentioned last Friday, and I'll now be posting the three mentioned invoices separately. It should also be noted that I was incorrect in my original post stating that this was being billed to Joseph Kerekes (thanks for catching that will g). These invoices are in fact being billed to the Luzerne County Courts. My apologies for the original error. (Simply click the image below to enlarge):

ORDER

AND NOW, this 3rd day of January, 2009 upon receipt and review of the attached Motion to Pay Computer Forensic Expert Invoice, it is hereby ORDERED AND DIRECTED that:

1. The Luzerne County Controller approve the payment of the Invoice, attached as “Exhibit 2” to the Motion, in the amount of $4990.16; and

2. The Luzerne County Treasurer issue a check payable to “Surveillance Technology Group, Inc., XXXXXX, XXXXXXXX, PA XXXXX” in the amount of $4990.16 for services rendered, representing payment in full.

BY THE COURT:

Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.

MOTION TO PAY COMPUTER FORENSIC EXPERT IN VOICE

The defendant, Joseph Manuel Kerekes (“Mr. Kerekes”), by and through his counsel, Shelley L. Centini, Esq. and John Pike, Esq. Court-Appointed Conflict Counselors for Luzerne County, respectfully requests this Court to Order payment of computer forensic expert invoice and represents as follows:

1. Mr. Kerekes is an adult individual presently incarcerated and serving a life sentence after pleading guilty to second degree murder and other offenses on December 8, 2008.

2. On May 15, 2007 Mr. Kerekes was charged by Criminal Complaint with the following offenses: Criminal Homicide (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 2501 (a)), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Homicide (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)), Liability for the Conduct of Another/Complicity (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 306(B)(3)(ii)), Arson and Related Offenses—Recklessly endangering (Title 16 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3301(a)(1)(i)), Arson and Related Offenses—Inhabited Building (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3301 (a)(1)(ii)), Burglary (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3502(a)), Robbery (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3701(a)(1)(i)), Theft by Unlawful Taking (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 3921 (a)), Tampering with Physical Evidence (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 4910(1)), Abuse of Corpse (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 5510), Conspiracy to Commit Burglary (Title 18 Pa.C.S Sec. 903(a)(1)), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1 )), Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Tampering with Physical Evidence (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a) (1)), and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Arson—Recklessly endangering (Title 18 Pa.C.S. Sec. 903(a)(1)).

3. On October 1, 2007 the Commonwealth filed their Notice of Aggravating Circumstances, advising that they intended to seek the death penalty against Mr. Kerekes.

4. In preparation for jury trial and/or penalty phase, on June 16, 2008 this Court approved counsel’s request to engage the services of Sherman Nowlin of Surveillance Technology Group, Inc., as defendant’s computer forensic expert at a rate not to exceed $5000.00 for work on the defendant’s case. Order attached as “Exhibit 1.”

5. On December 13, 2008, Mr. Nowlin sent his bill to counsel. The bill totals $4990.16. See Invoice attached as “Exhibit 2.”

6. Conflict counsel are appointed by the Court to defendants who qualify for representation by the Public Defender’s Office because of their indigency but whom the Public Defender’s Office cannot represent given a conflict of interest.

7. As of the date of this Petition, the undersigned is aware of no substantial change in the defendant’s financial condition since the court appointment of counsel. The defendant is unable to pay the fees and costs associated with the computer forensic expert from his own funds.

8. The engagement of Mr. Nowlin was essential to a fair trial and to the defendant’s right to effective assistance of counsel and due process and equal protection of law as guaranteed by the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

WHEREFORE, the defendant respectfully requests that this Honorable Court enter an Order directing that the Luzerne County Controller approve payment of the Invoice attached in the amount of $4990.16 and directing the Luzerne County Treasurer to issue a check payable to “Surveillance Technology Group, Inc.” in the amount of $4990.16 as payment in full of the attached invoice.

Respectfully Submitted,

SHELLEY L. CENTINI, ESQ.
Conflict Counsel for Defendant

Cuadra Get's Third Attorney

Harlow Cuadra has been assigned his (new) third attorney... Thomas S. Cometa... after Paul Galante was removed during the previous hearing. Attorney Cometa represented Cuadra once before.

Also, several responses where filed today:

1. 07/21/2008 Defs Joint Relpy Brief to Comm's Brief In Opp to Motion to Suppress Search Warrant/Evidence filed.

2. 07/21/2008 Defs Joint reply Comm Brief In Opp Motion to Suppress 4-2007 Interceptions at Beach filed.

I'll have more later after I finish the Crab Catcher Transcripts.

Even More Delays?

According to the Citizens' Voice... late 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.

Fannick, who has successfully defended accused murderers Hugo Selenski and Byron Vinson, met with Joseph Kerekes at least eight times at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility prior to being hired by Cuadra, which prosecutors argued created a potential conflict in the case. Only fees were discussed, Kerekes said.

Prosecutors Challenge Cuadra's Alibi

According to the Citizens' Voice... accused killer Harlow Cuadra sent a handwritten note to an acquaintance last year, coaching him on ways to corroborate one of Cuadra’s alleged alibis, prosecutors said in a court filing Thursday.

In the note to Nep Maliki, Cuadra set the storyline for an alibi in which he claimed to be working as a male escort in Virginia at the time Bryan Kocis was killed in Dallas Township in January 2007.

Cuadra, 26, and Joseph Kerekes, 34, both of Virginia Beach, Va., are accused of slashing Kocis’ neck and stabbing his torso nearly 30 times and later setting his Midland Drive home on fire.

They face the death penalty and are scheduled to stand trial together before Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. beginning Sept. 2.

A hearing on pre-trial motions is scheduled for Monday*.

Cuadra told Maliki they had met at Cuadra’s home in Virginia on the morning of Jan. 24, 2007, the day Kocis was killed. They were there for about an hour before they showered together and Maliki left, Cuadra said.

“I guess the thing we need to get clear is the time you came over,” Cuadra said in the note. “Did you work early that day after you saw me? At what time did you go into work that day? Please check with your work.”

The note, which Cuadra told Maliki was “for his eyes only,” was included as an exhibit in the prosecutors’ answer to an omnibus pretrial motion filed by Cuadra’s attorneys in March.

Cuadra has offered conflicting alibis since his arrest, including that he was performing an escort call at the Fox Ridge Motel in Plains Township at the time of the murder, prosecutors said.

Cuadra sent an e-mail to Matthew Brannon of Fayetteville, N.C., attempting to bolster his Fox Ridge Motel claim, four minutes after the fire at Kocis’ house was called in to 911, prosecutors said.

Brannon, a computer expert, said the e-mail could have been sent from anywhere using a mobile air card. State police confirmed continuous Internet connectivity is available throughout the area where Kocis’ house was located.

Cuadra asked former escort client Howard Hallford to corroborate the Maliki story in a May 2007 interview with police. Hallford agreed, but then backed off, saying he had only seen Cuadra once in a two-week span in mid to late January 2007.

Attorneys in the case are under a court-imposed gag order and are not permitted to comment on filings or developments.

Prosecutors also asked to defer judgment on a defense motion for a change of venue to a location outside Luzerne County until after jury selection.

Cuadra’s attorneys said in a filing in May that media coverage of the murder had been, “extensive, inflammatory, sensational and highly inculpatory,” making the selection of an impartial jury nearly impossible in Luzerne County.

After jury selection, attorneys for both sides and Olszewski would have a better opportunity to “gauge the effect” of the media coverage on potential jurors.
-----

* The Monday date is incorrect. The pre-trial motions hearing is scheduled for Tuesday (07/08/08)... the Citizens' Voice has since printed a correction.

DA Files a Few Briefs

With only a couple of days before Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' next hearing, the DA's office has filed the following briefs:

1. Brief in Opposition to Motion to Suppress Evidence : Suppress Search Warrant

2. Brief in Opposition to Motion to Suppress Evidence: Motion to suppress Apr 07 interceptions

With tomorrow being a holiday, I'm not sure if I'll be able to get copies until Monday... at which time I'll be in Wilkes-Barre anyway, so I'll just run by the courthouse then if need be.

Update @ 4:59 PM... Looks like we'll definitely have to wait until Monday... as it appears that the good folks of Luzerne County like to leave early on holiday-eve's... oh well!

Certificate of Service

Judge PPO filed a certificate of service on June 20, 2008 in regards to Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' murder trial.

Normally, certificates of service are filed by the attorneys when filing motions. The certificate of service is done as proof they served the other parties with the motions or whatever paperwork they filed. It's a bit weird that PPO would have filed a certificate of service, so I can only guess it has to do with one of his orders or opinions (possibly the transportation order for Robert Rodden that was filed on June 19, 2008).

I've also heard rumors that Harlow and Joe's attorneys were going to request that the July hearing be a closed hearing... so who knows... I'll try to have a more definitive answer shortly.

Update 06/25/08: Another strange filing was done yesterday: Certification from DA's Office filed by Judge Michael Toole... this one doesn't really make sense.

Motions Hearing Slated for May 29, 2008

On Wednesday, Joseph Kerekes’ attorneys filed another motion for sanctions (this will be the fourth). Now they're saying prosecutors violated a judge’s gag order by releasing police reports containing statements made by other inmates that had contact with Kerekes.

Defense attorneys also said prosecutors spoke to one of those acquaintances, Robert Rodden, without permission from Rodden’s attorney John Pike. Pike also happens to be one of Kerekes’ attorneys. Joe’ attorneys now want Olszewski to stop prosecutors from using the statements of those inmates at trial.

It would appear that this hearing will occur on May 29, 2008 at 1:30 PM.

Meanwhile Harlow Cuadra's attorneys filed a motion for enlargement of time to file omnibus pretrial motions today, which was granted by judge PPO.

Some New Dates...

On Thursday, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski filed several orders in regards to the murder trial of Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes, 2 of them being new hearing dates:

1. A hearing has been scheduled for 07/08/08 (I'm assuming a status conference).

2. Pre-trial conference has been scheduled for 08/12/08.

It also appears that the judge has granted the prosecution's motion for handwriting exemplars. Harlow's attorneys also filed a few motions, and I'll try to have more information on that shortly.

A Taxing Day Indeed...

The next status conference for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes is scheduled for April 15, 2008 @ 1:30 PM. During this hearing, there will be several issues Judge Peter Paul Olszewski will hear testimony and arguments on:

1. Prosecution's request for independent pyschiatric evaluations.
2. Prosecution's request for handwriting exemplars.
3. Kerekes' petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.
4. Prosecution's request to include Justin Hensley's previous testimony.
5. Kerekes' attorneys want Prosecutors sanctioned.

Other motions that were filed months ago, and are still not ruled upon include:

1. Kerekes' attorneys want the trial moved out of Luzerne County.
2. Kerekes' attorneys want a separate trial for Kerekes and co-defendant Harlow Cuadra.
3. Kerekes' attorneys want to prevent the Prosecution from using any statements Kerekes made to police, the contents of any conversations recorded at a California beach, and the contents of any evidence seized from Kerekes' e-mail account and Virginia home.
4. Kerekes' attorneys want to keep any past criminal record of Kerekes out of trial.

All-in-all, it should make for an interesting afternoon, and a taxing day indeed for PPO. I don't expect the judge to schedule a new trial date though... as Harlow will still have a couple of more days after this hearing, to file an appeal for the removal of his previous attorney Demetrius Fannick.

Kerekes’ Attorneys Oppose Psychiatric Exam

The Citizen's Voice is reporting that attorneys for Joseph Kerekes, who is accused with Harlow Cuadra of killing Bryan Kocis in Dallas Township last year, filed a motion Wednesday opposing a prosecution request that he undergo an independent psychiatric examination.

Prosecutors requested the psychiatric evaluation in an omnibus pretrial motion filed last November, a month after they disclosed their intention to seek the death penalty against Kerekes, 34, of Virginia Beach, Va.

Kerekes’ attorneys argued the request was “premature and inappropriate at this juncture.”

They said Commonwealth v. Sartin, a 2000 case in which an independent psychiatric examination was allowed, “does not give the Commonwealth carte blanche to seek an independent psychiatric evaluation whenever they seek the death penalty.”

Kerekes’ attorneys also filed a brief opposing a prosecution motion seeking to admit the former testimony of Justin Hensley, a prosecution witness who is serving in Iraq.

A second brief submitted by Kerekes’ attorneys on Wednesday said he would be willing to submit to a “reasonable handwriting exemplar” for purposes of “non-testimonial” identification.

Prosecution's Statement of Facts

The following is the Statement of Facts, filed by the Prosecution in their brief in support of motion to disqualify attorney Demetrius Fannick from representing Harlow Cuadra. Personally I find paragraph(s) 2 & 3 to be quite interesting:

On November 28, 2007, Attorney Demetrius Fannick issued a press release stating he been contacted by Defendant Joseph Kerekes about representing him in the upcoming homicide trial involving the death of Brian Kocis. Attorney Fannick stated, “I would certainly like to get involved in Mr. Kerekes’ case. I believe it is very defendable. But I can’t do anything until I am retained.” See James Conmy, Accused Kocis Killer Hire Fannick as Legal Counsel, Citizen’s Voice, Nov. 28, 2007, attached to the Commonwealth's corresponding motion as Exhibit “1” He went on to say, “There are certain limitations on my conversations with him. I do not want to overstep my bounds. I don't want to in any way interfere with Mr. Kerekes’ representation unless I am retained.”

Attorney Fannick met with Joseph Kerekes at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility eight (8) times. Those dates are as follows: 10/26/07, 10/30/07, 11/06/07, 11/07/07, 12/06/07, 12/07/07, 12/14/07, and 1/11/08.

Attorneys Mark Bufalino, John Pike and Shelly Centini, Mr. Kerekes’ court appointed conflict counsel were led to believe that Attorney Fannick’s unannounced meeting(s) with Joseph Kerekes were for the purpose of representing Mr. Kerekes. While they were disconcerted at permitting their client Mr. Kerekes speaking with anyone about the case, they were led to believe that Attorney Fannick was about to enter his appearance on behalf of Mr. Kerekes, therefore, they permitted contact between Attorney Fannick and their client, Joseph Kerekes.

Joseph Kerekes faces the death penalty in this case. Also, Joseph Kerekes has filed an alibi notice. Joseph Kerekes is charged with Criminal conspiracy with Harlow Cuadra. Joseph Kerekes has requested severance of the two cases.

In April 2007, conversations of Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes were intercepted on a nudist beach in California. Harlow Cuadra stated in Mr. Kerekes presence, “We did some recon work and the door does not have a peep hole on it. It has two square blocks of windows way on the top and Brian is not tall enough to see through that. It was quick, he never saw it coming.” Black’s (nudist) Beach at pg 36. Harlow Cuadra continued, “At one point I thought he knew who the fuck I was. Then that’s when my dude came around. It was crazy.” Id. at pg. 48-49. Kerekes stated, “I think he [ may have slipped something in there but he only took a sip” to which Harlow Cuadra stated, “No. No. I only have a sip or two while I keep pouring it and pouring it for him, so by the time the doorbell rang and he got up, he was kind of stumbling and that was it.”

On January 29, 2008, Attorney Fannick entered his appearance for Harlow Cuadra, the co-defendant and charged co-conspirator. Attorney Fannick met with Harlow Cuadra two (2) times. In another press statement on January 29, 2008, Attorney Fannick stated that, “I’m on board and it is my understanding this will be a trial. I don’t see any other way it is going to be resolved unless the DA’s office drops the charges. My client maintains his innocence.” Referencing Joseph Kerekes, the Citizens Voice article continued: “Fannick insisted Kerekes did not retain him and those conversations have no impact on him now representing Cuadra.” Fannick was quoted as saying, “If there is any appearance of any type of conflict, it will be waived by Kerekes.” See James Conmy, Accused Kocis Killer Cuadra Hires Defense Attorney Fannick, Citizen’s Voice, Jan. 29, 2008.

Kerekes' Attorneys Respond to Prosecution's Motions

Joseph Kerekes' Attorneys have filed briefs in opposition to the Prosecution's motion to strike Defendants Omnibus Pretrial Motion, and in opposition to the Prosecution's motion to disqualify Atty. Demetrius Fannick from representing Harlow Cuadra.

I'll try to have more information later today.

Update @ 5:13 PM: The Times Leader picks up the story and reports that Attorneys for Joseph Kerekes said there is no conflict with attorney Demetris Fannick defending suspect Harlow Cuadra.

Update @ 03/04/08 4:53 AM: Offering a little more detail, the Times Leader continues the story with... homicide suspect Joseph Kerekes said he has no problem with attorney Demetrius Fannick defending suspect Harlow Cuadra.

Kerekes and Cuadra are awaiting trial in the January 2007 slaying of Bryan Kocis inside his Dallas Township home. Fannick was recently hired to defend Cuadra.

But Luzerne County prosecutors sought to have Fannick disqualified from that role because he had previously met with Kerekes. That, they said, creates a conflict with him representing Cuadra.

But in Monday’s court papers, Kerekes’ attorneys, John Pike, Mark Bufalino and Shelley Centini, said no such conflict exists.

The attorneys said Kerekes was never a client of Fannick and all of the discussions between the two pertained to the possibility of Fannick defending Kerekes.

“Those conversations were reportedly limited to the retainer fee,” the attorneys wrote.

Kerekes, they said, never discussed any details of the case with Fannick.

“To date, the Commonwealth has failed to provide evidence that any confidential information was provided by (Kerekes) to (Fannick) during any of their meetings,” the attorneys wrote. “Kerekes chooses to waive any potential conflict of interest, should any exist, and permit (Fannick) to continue to represent (Cuadra) in this matter.”

The response comes days after Fannick, too, said he should be allowed to stay on the case. He said there are no issues to create a conflict. His conversations with Kerekes, he said, were very limited, mainly revolving around legal fees.

Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. will rule on the issue after a hearing Wednesday.

Prosecution's Response to Kerekes' Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion

With the next hearing for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes just a few days away... March 5th to be exact, I've been trying to post the actual text of the motions that have been filed, and are still unruled... I believe this is the last one (but don't quote me on that).

Back on January 30, 2007, Joseph Kerekes' attorneys filed a multitude of motions, one being to prevent the prosecutors from using any statements Kerekes made to police, the contents of any conversations recorded at a California beach, and the contents of any evidence seized from Kerekes' e-mail account and Virginia home.

I offer you the Prosecution's Response:

COMMONWEALTH'S MOTION TO STRIKE DEFENDANT’S OMNIBUS PRE-TRIAL MOTION PURSUANT TO Pa.R.Crim.P.581(D)

NOW COMES, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by and through its attorneys, JACQUELINE MUSTO CARROLL, District Attorney of Luzerne County, MICHAEL MELNICK, Assistant District Attorney of Luzerne County, TIMOTHY M. DOHERTY Assistant District Attorney of Luzerne County, WILLIAM J. DUNN, JR. Assistant District Attorney of Luzerne County, and SHANNON CRAKE Assistant District Attorney of Luzerne County, who hereby move this Honorable Court to deny and dismiss Defendant, Joseph Kerekes’ Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion and in support thereof, avers the following:

1. The Defendant in the above-referenced matter is an adult individual incarcerated in the Luzeme County Correctional Facility.

2. On May 15, 2007, the Defendant was arrested and charged with multiple offenses arising from a criminal homicide which occurred on January 24, 2007.

3. The Defendant was arraigned on October 4, 2007, and entered a plea of Not Guilty to the charges of: Criminal Homicide; Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Homicide; Arson-Danger of Death or Bodily Injury; Arson-Inhabited Building or Structure; Robbery-Inflict Serious Bodily Injury; Theft by Unlawful Taking-Movable Property; Tamper With/Fabricate Physical Evidence; Abuse of Corpse; Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery; Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Tampering With or Fabricating Physical Evidence; and Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Arson.

4. In furtherance of the investigation in the instant matter, the Commonwealth has acquired a voluminous amount of evidence which is in the form of various mediums.

5. On January 30, 2008, the Defendant filed an Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion which, inter cilia, requests that this Honorable Court suppress various and broadly-defined articles of evidence.

6. Pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(D), all motions to the court for the suppression of evidence alleged to have been obtained in violation of the defendant’s rights, must state specifically and with particularity the evidence sought to be suppressed, the grounds for suppression, and the facts and events in support thereof’

7. Throughout his Motion, Defendant makes bald, boilerplate assertions without specifying the particular facts and/or specific authority that would lend support to his conclusion.

8. In Paragraphs 28-32 of his Motion, the defendant claims that any and all statements which were made to the police should be suppressed on the grounds that they were obtained in violation of the broadly-scoped “United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions as specified by Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966) and its progeny.”

9. The Defendant fails to allege which law enforcement agency or police department obtained such statements or even what State or jurisdiction the Defendant was in when Pa.R 58 1(D)., the statements were made. The “facts and events” in support of Defendant’s suppression assertion appear nowhere.

1O. The Defendant’s request is completely void of anything specific as to time, place, or what location he was in when these allegedly suppressible statements were uttered.

11. The Commonwealth is unable to properly respond to Paragraph’s 28-32 of Defendant’s Motion due to the lack of any of the requisite specificity as to which statements are in contention and by what specific authority the statements should be suppressed.

12. The only authority offered in support of Defendant’s foregoing request is the broad and boilerplate assertion that Defendant’s rights were violated pursuant to the United States and Pennsylvania Constitutions. See, Paragraph 30.

13. The Defendant makes reference to his alleged prior bad acts without delineating the same. This blanket assertion is in violation of Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(D).

14. Therefore, due to the fact that Defendant’s Omnibus Motion fails to state specifically and with particularity the grounds for suppression, and the facts and events in support thereof, the Commonwealth is unable to properly respond to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress, and the same should be stricken and not heard before this Honorable Court due to non compliance with Pa.R.Crim.P. 581(D).

WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth respectfully requests this Honorable Court to enter an Order striking Defendant’s Omnibus Pre-Trial Motion to suppress evidence for failure to comply with the Rules of Criminal Procedure, or, in the alternative, Defendant is Ordered to file an amended Motion which more specifically addresses the date, time, and place of alleged statements and prior bad acts, as well as “the facts and events” in support thereof.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,

MUSTO CARROLL
DISTRICT ATTORNEY

MICHAEL MELNICK
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

SHANNON CRAKE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY

WILLIAM J. DUNN, JR.
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY