Cuadra Trial... Day 6 Overview

The Citizen's Voice reports that one man took the witness stand Tuesday in Harlow Cuadra’s capital homicide trial, but it wasn’t what he said that raised the biggest question for Cuadra’s defense attorneys.

Did Cuadra, during wire-tapped conversations, actually admit to involvement in Bryan Kocis’ stabbing death?

Grant Roy, a former competitor of Kocis’, testified Cuadra had discussed Kocis’ death. Joseph D’Andrea, who is co-defending Cuadra with Paul J. Walker, asked Roy to prove it in a transcript of a wire-tap that took place in April 2007 at a nude beach in La Jolla, Calif.

“Show me one spot in that transcript where it says my client killed Bryan Kocis. I’ll sit here for a week if that’s what it takes,” D’Andrea said during cross-examination.

“I didn’t say that,” Roy responded. “I said in the context of the conversations he said he was there.”

Roy, the prosecution’s 42nd witness, testified for the second straight day. Combined with his Monday testimony, Roy was on the witness stand for more than 12 hours, but for the majority of that time — more than eight hours — jurors listened to two wiretapped conversations. Tuesday jurors listened to a more than three-hour-long audio recording taken at Black’s Beach of Roy, 42, his business partner Sean Lockhart, Cuadra and his business partner Joseph Kerekes.

Cuadra, 27, and Kerekes, 35, who co-owned a male escort and gay pornography business in Virginia Beach, Va., came to San Diego in hopes of cementing a deal in which Lockhart and Cuadra would act together. Roy and Lockhart, who had been involved in a legal dispute with Kocis over Lockhart’s right to act with other pornography companies, were cooperating with police’s investigation into Kocis’ homicide.

Although Kerekes talks more in the recording, Cuadra refers to Kocis’ Dallas Township home and the killing several times, Roy said. Prosecutors allege Cuadra killed Kocis and set fire to his home on Jan. 24, 2007. Cuadra referenced a new entertainment system Kocis had installed at his house, during the recording, as well as videos and other files Kocis kept at the Midland Drive residence. But Cuadra rarely used Kocis’ name directly and referred to another person possibly killing Kocis.

“His (expletive) phone rang,” Cuadra said in the recording. Roy said “he” would be Kocis. “He goes, ya know what, you remind me of something, of someone, and he smiled. And I was like ahhh, I don’t know, I put my head down … Then he smiled at me like, ya know, I know who you (expletive) are … He answers the phone and then right then, ya know, my dude comes around.”

At another time, Cuadra said: “Actually, seeing that (expletive) going down, actually it’s sick, but it made me feel better inside.

“It almost felt like I got revenge and I know that sounds (expletive) up.”

D’Andrea, during cross-examination, tried to point to Kerekes as the potential killer. He showed examples of Kerekes being pushy in trying to negotiate a deal between the two sides.

“There was nothing in this transcript where Harlow Cuadra put pressure on anyone? There was nothing in this transcript where Harlow Cuadra threatened anyone?” D’Andrea asked.

“No,” Roy said.

Kerekes, who was a co-defendant in the case, pleaded guilty in December to second-degree homicide and is serving a life sentence. He will not testify for prosecution.

Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick, while questioning Roy, cited examples of Cuadra seeming just as eager as Kerekes about making a deal.

“At anytime at Black’s Beach did Mr. Cuadra say he did not slit Bryan Kocis’ throat?” Melnick asked.

“No, he did not,” Roy said.

D’Andrea also pointed to a potential error in the transcript during a particular point. In the transcript it reads:

“Well, ya know, how they say that ah, whoever made it in, had to know Bryan … ? That’s some (expletive), because we did some recon work, and the door doesn’t have a peephole on it.”

After being asked by D’Andrea to review the recording, Roy said it sounded like “he did some recon work,” meaning someone aside from Cuadra had done the reconnaissance work of Kocis’ Midland Drive home.

Roy admitted he first contacted Cuadra about working together, but said Cuadra and Kerekes followed up on the deal many more times.

During cross-examination, Roy also admitted to saying several times he wanted to kill Kocis, because of the very heated negotiations about Lockhart’s working status. Roy also said a model who worked for him referred to hiring a hitman to kill Kocis, but he laughed it off.

“You said if you were going to kill him you would do it yourself?” D’Andrea asked.

“Yes,” Roy responded.

“That’s how bad the blood was between you?” D’Andrea asked.

“There was some pretty heavy things (said) at the time,” Roy said.
---
According to the Times Leader, Grant Roy, a producer of gay adult films, admits he had motive to kill Bryan Kocis.

Their battle started with Kocis filing a lawsuit in February 2006 against Roy and his business partner and adult film actor Sean Lockhart. The lawsuit, Roy said, prevented him and Lockhart from making money producing adult films.

Fighting back, Roy set up a blog he called Cobra Killer and criticized Kocis and his production company Cobra Video.

After Kocis was murdered in his Dallas Township home on Jan. 24, 2007, Roy assumed that he and Lockhart would be prime suspects.

Roy obtained a criminal defense lawyer who advised him to cooperate with investigators. During one of six meetings with investigators, Roy admitted he wanted Kocis dead.

Roy’s statements came on Tuesday, the sixth day of the Luzerne County capital murder trial of Harlow Cuadra.

Investigators alleged Cuadra, 27, and his partner, Joseph Kerekes, 35, killed Kocis because they wanted to work with Lockhart, a contract actor for Cobra Video.

Two former adult film actors testified last week that Cuadra and Kerekes considered Kocis their main rival in the industry.

Kerekes pleaded guilty in December to second-degree murder and is serving life in prison without parole. Cuadra could face the death penalty if convicted of first-degree homicide.

Roy was on the defensive, reluctantly answering questions from Cuadra’s attorneys, Joseph D’Andrea and Paul Walker. Several times during their exchange, Roy objected to D’Andrea’s questions, claiming his answers would be speculation.

D’Andrea reviewed transcripts of two recorded conversations Roy and Lockhart had with Cuadra and Kerekes on April 27 and April 28, 2007, near San Diego.

Roy agreed to wear a recording device when he invited Cuadra and Kerekes to California to discuss filming movies involving Cuadra and Lockhart. Prosecutors alleged Cuadra and Lockhart made several admissions to Kocis’ killing during the recorded conversations.

“Nowhere in any of the recordings does it say that my client killed Mr. Kocis,” D’Andrea said to Roy.

“The context of the conversation was Harlow was in the house when Bryan was killed,” Roy said.

Not happy with Roy’s response, D’Andrea fired back, offering to sit for a week to allow Roy to find in the transcripts where Cuadra admitted to killing Kocis.

“It doesn’t,” Roy said.

Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick responded that Cuadra described two different times when Kocis was killed – when the doorbell rang and when Kocis answered his telephone.

D’Andrea said Kerekes was “pressuring” Roy and Lockhart into filming adult movies. Kerekes would ask when and where, and offered Roy and Lockhart $1,000 a month for two years.

“(Cuadra and Kerekes) were trying to press ways into working with us; to pay us under the table,” Roy said.

Prosecutors are expected to show the jury this week several alibi plans Cuadra and Kerekes allegedly made up while they were jailed, including the “For Your Eyes Only” letter Cuadra allegedly wrote to Nep Maliki on June 13, 2007.

Maliki was a customer of an escort business Cuadra and Kerekes operated in Virginia.

In the letter, Cuadra advised Maliki to tell investigators that he was with him in Virginia Beach, Va., the night Kocis was killed.

Harlow Cuadra's Trial... Day 6

6:34 PM: A court watcher tells me that Grant Roy was cross-examined and is now done testifying. But no one else took the stand today.

5:30 PM: Sources tell me that the prosecution could present closing arguments as soon as Monday... though based on the delays thus far, I'd say it's closer to next Wednesday... we'll see.

3:09 PM: The Times Leader reports adult film producer Grant Roy said he believes his profession of producing gay pornographic movies is "an art."

Roy made the commnets while being questioned by Harlow Cuadra's attorney, Joseph D'Andrea.

D'Andrea is attacking Roy about his profession, suggesting Roy makes money by selling sex involving young men.

Roy was called to testify by prosecutors in the capital murder trial of Cuadra, charged in the killing of adult film producer Bryan Kocis, who operated Cobra Video.

Investigators alleged Cuadra and his partner, Joseph Kerekes, wanted to work with Cobra Video contract model Sean Lockhart, who is Roy's business partner in LSG Media.

After Kocis was killed in January 2007, Roy and Lockhart invited Cuadra and Kerekes in April 2007 to San Diego, Calif.

There, investigators secretly recorded two conversations with the four men where Cuadra and Kerekes allegedly made admissions to Kocis' murder.

Prosecutors played to the jury the two recorded conversations on Monday and Tuesday.

D'Andrea said Roy "hated" Kocis and established a blog called Cobra Killer.

"That's pretty drastic, Cobra Video, isn't it?" D'Andrea asked rhetorically.

2:30 PM: "Very tiresome and boring" is how one court watcher has described today's events thus far.

11:19 AM: A court watcher tells me that as of a few minutes ago, they were on page 56 of the transcripts, so out of 108 pages, there's still a bit to go... also the sound is muffled, but all the jurors have headphones and transcripts so it's easy for them to follow.

11:14 AM: The Citizens' Voice is reporting that Jurors started listening to the second of two recorded conversations this morning In the sixth day of testimony in the capital murder trial of Harlow Cuadra. The more than three-hour-long recording takes place at Black's Beach in La Jolla, Calif., outside of San Diego.

Grant Roy, who started testifying Monday, is still on the stand as jurors listen to the recorded conversation in headphones. Roy, who was a business partner of well-known gay pornography actor Sean Lockhart, urged Cuadra and his business partner Joseph Kerekes to come to San Diego. Cuadra, 27, and Kerekes, 35, owned a male escort and gay pornography business in Virginia Beach, Va., and were hoping to film with Lockhart, Roy testified. Roy, who was cooperating with police, carried a recording a device as the four men spoke at the beach.

On the recording, the four men were discussing Bryan Kocis' death when Cuadra starts describing details. He says:

"His (expletive) phone ran, he goes ya know what, you remind me of something, of someone and he smiled and I was like ahhh, I don't know, I put my head down...then he smiled at me like ya know, I know who you (expletive) are...He answers the phone and then right then ya know my dude comes around."

9:11 AM: The Times Leader reports that the Luzerne County jury in the Harlow Cuadra capital murder case is hearing a recording of a conversation involving Cuadra and three other men at a nude beach near San Diego, Calif.

Investigators recorded the conversation through a device installed in a remote car opener carried by Grant Roy, an adult film producer.

Cuadra and his partner, Joseph Kerekes, met with Roy and his business partner, Sean Lockhart, in San Diego on April 27 and April 28, 2007, to discuss the business of filming adult movies.

At the time, Cuadra and Kerekes were suspects in the murder of gay pornographic movie producer Bryan Kocis, 44, at Kocis' Dallas Township home on Jan. 24, 2007.

Prosecutors alleged Cuadra and Kerekes, both from Virginia Beach, Va., killed Kocis, whom they considered their main rival in the adult movie production industry. They wanted to film movies with Lockhart, who was a contract model for Kocis' company, Cobra Video.

Roy and Lockhart, through their testimony, said the cooperated with law enforcement in the investigation.

Roy wore a body wire when the four men had lunch at the Crabcatchers Cafe near San Diego on April 27. That recording was played to the jury on Monday.

According to a homicide investigation action report filed in court, there were law enforcement personnel "strategically placed inside" the cafe and at the cafe's exits.

Prosecutors are playing to the jury the recording when the four men visited Black's Beach, a nude beach, where investigators alleged Cuadra and Kerekes made several "admissions" to Kocis' killing. The jury was also given a 108-page transcript to read along with the nude beach recording.

8:22 AM: Harlow Cuadra's sixth day of trial is scheduled to begin shortly. Grant Roy is going to take the witness stand again today, and prosecutors are expected to play recorded conversations he and Sean Lockhart had with Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes in San Diego, Calif., on April 28, 2007 at Black's Beach. Stay tuned for further updates throughout the day.

Harlow Cuadra's Trial... Day 5

5:47 PM: I'm told that the meeting in the judge's chamber is aparently the result of 30 mins., or so of conversation that was heard by the jury (Sean and Grant), after Harlow and Joe were dropped off at their hotel. I'm not sure if this is in the original transcripts... so who knows.

5:39 PM: There's a meeting in the judge's chamber.

5:25 PM: I'm told that the BBT's won't be played until tomorrow... more shortly.

5:15 PM: While we await an update as to what's going on... I wanted to take a moment to mention that another witness that's expected to testify for the prosecution this week is Attorney Sam Hall, which I'm told was a mediator for the settlement agreement between Bryan Kocis, Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy.

3:25 PM: A court watcher tells me that the CCT's are still being played.

2:38 PM: More updates from a court watcher... I'm told that the tone of the conversation during the CCT's sounded friendly... definitely not chipper, but nothing really stood out. The courtroom isn’t nearly as packed as it was for Sean’s testimony, and Grant looks drawn.

1:57 PM: A court watcher tells me that the CCT's are still being played, and that it'll be a little while before the BBT's.

12:20 PM: The Citizens' Voice reports that Jurors in the Harlow Cuadra capital homicide trial began listening this morning to the first of two recorded conversations Cuadra and his business partner, Joseph Kerekes, had with two other men regarding the death of Bryan Kocis.

The recording of an April 27, 2007 meeting between Cuadra, Kerekes and Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart, takes place primarily at the Crab Catcher restaurant in San Diego, Cal. The recording lasts about three hours. Jurors listened to the first 30 minutes of the tape before breaking for lunch and are expected to listen to the remaining portion when they return.

Roy, who was business partners with Lockhart, a well-known gay pornography star, took the stand this morning in the fifth day of testimony. Lockhart and Roy were cooperating with police in the investigation of the killing of Kocis at his Dallas Township home in Jan. 24, 2007. Cuadra, 27, could face the death penalty if convicted of first-degree homicide in Kocis’ stabbing death. Kerekes, 35, Cuadra’s former partner of gay pornography and male escort businesses in Viginia Beach, Va., pleaded guilty to second degree homicide. He is serving a life sentence.

Roy was wearing a recording device when he and Lockhart met the two Virginia Beach men. Cuadra and Kerekes came to San Diego, Roy testified, to try to cement a deal where Cuadra and Lockhart would act in pornographic films together.

In the first 30 minutes of the tape jurors heard Roy and police testing the recording equipment. Lockhart and Roy are also heard driving to meet Kerekes and Cuadra and some idle introductory conversations when they pick Cuadra and Kerekes at their hotel. Jurors are wearing headphones and following a transcript of testimony.

County Judge Peter Paul Olszewksi Jr. told jurors testimony will resume at 1:15 p.m. and will likely continue past 4:30 p.m. today until Roy’s testimony is finished.

11:43 AM: According to the Times Leader, prosecutors are playing the conversation between Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart with Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes to the Luzerne County jury.

The three hour conversation was intercepted by investigators from a recording device Roy wore on his belt buckle at Crabcatchers Restaurant outside San Diego, Calif., on April 27, 2007. The restaurant recording was one of two intercepts where investigators alleged Cuadra and Kerekes made "admissions" to the murder of gay pornographic movie producer Bryan Kocis.

Roy, an adult film producer, told the jury in his testimony that he cooperated with investigators, and voluntarily agreed to wear a recording device when the four men met at the restaurant.

Roy testified Cuadra and Kerekes wanted to film movies with Lockhart, his business partner and former lover.

After Kocis was killed, Roy told the jury that Cuadra called Lockhart and referred him to wnep.com on Jan. 25, 2007.

"Lockhart was concerned that we were next," Roy testified. During that phone call on Jan. 25, Lockhart had testified Cuadra said to him, "I guess my guy went overboard."

Roy further told the jury that there were a number of phone calls and e-mails from Cuadra and Kerekes after Kocis' death, pushing them into filming.

"I told them just keep away from us." Roy said.

At some point in April, Roy said Kerekes sent him an e-mail and the four men agreed to meet in San Diego on April 27. That's when Roy volunteered to wear a recording device for investigators.

A second recorded conversation the four men had on a nude beach on April 28 is also expected to be played to the jury.

11:34 AM: A court watcher tells me that they're playing the tapes right now… breaking at noon for lunch and then playing the remaining 2 ½ hrs of tape.

10:35 AM: Reports from the Citizens' Voice say that Grant Roy testified today that he made it clear during his first meeting with Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes that he wanted no one to harm Bryan Kocis.

Roy and his partner Sean Lockhart, who were involved in a highly publicized legal dispute with Kocis, met Cuadra and Kerkes at a dinner meeting in a Las Vegas restaurant in early January 2007, Roy testified this morning during Cuadra’s capital homicide trial.

Cuadra could face the death penalty if found guilty of first-degree homicide in Kocis’ Jan. 24, 2007, stabbing death. Five witnesses, including Roy, were called today by prosecution in the fifth day of testimony.

“I told them ‘If something happened to Bryan, they’re going to show up at my door the next day. If something happened to either one of us they’re going to show up at his door the next day,’” Roy said.

Cuadra, 27, and Kerkes, 35, owned an escort and gay pornography business in Virginia Beach, Va. They were meeting with Roy and Lockhart in hopes of forming a business relationship where Cuadra and Lockhart would act in films together, Roy said.

“Harlow and both Joe seemed a little eager to get this production under way,” Roy said. “I didn’t see the need to rush. At various times, I expressed to them I didn’t think it’d be a problem if we could get out from this mediation (with Kocis).”

Roy said a settlement between Lockhart and Kocis was nearly finished.The settlement would allow Lockhart to act again under his screen name Brent Corrigan. Because the settlement was still being negotiated, Roy said, he couldn’t reveal that information to Cuadra or Kerekes. But as

the seven-course dinner progressed, he said, both men were drinking excessively and became more insistent.

“(Kerekes) said, ‘Harlow has this guy who will do anything for him,'” Roy testified. Roy said he took this statement to mean murder.

Roy’s testimony was stopped for a brief recess. When jurors return, prosecutors are expected to play a taped conversation Roy had with Cuadra and Kerekes at a nude beach near San Diego in April 2007, when Cuadra discusses Kocis’ death.

9:35 AM: The Times Leader is reporting that Adult film producer Grant Roy testified he went to the FBI with information that gay pornographic movie producer Bryan Kocis filmed movies involving a minor.

Roy said he was involved in federal litigation with Kocis who filed a civil lawsuit alleging his model, Sean Lockhart, violated trademark rights in February 2006. Roy and Lockhart were named in the lawsuit, including their production company, LSG Media, LLC.

Roy told the jury that he was upset with Kocis about the lawsuit, and went to federal authorities that Kocis filmed movies with Lockhart, who was 17 years old at the time.

Roy said the lawsuit with Kocis was settled in January 2007.

Roy is likely to stay on the witness stand for much of Monday, the fifth day of the capital murder trial of Harlow Cuadra, charged in the killing of Kocis.

Two representatives from hotels in Virginia Beach testified earlier Monday that Cuadra stayed at the Hilton near the Norfolk, VA, airport and at the Springhill Suites by Marriott in Norfolk from Jan. 30, 2007 to Feb. 10, 2007.

Prosecutors said Cuadra's home in Virginia Beach is near the two hotels.

Roy is expected to tell the jury that he wore a recording device when he met with Cuadra in San Diego, Calif., in late April 2007. Prosecutors alleged in court records that Cuadra made "admissions" to Kocis' killing.

8:28 AM: Harlow Cuadra's fifth day of trial is scheduled to begin in just a few minutes. Grant Roy is expected to testify today, and prosecutors are expected to play two recorded conversations he and Sean Lockhart had with Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes in San Diego, Calif., on April 27 and April 28, 2007. Stay tuned for further updates throughout the day.

BBT's to be Played in Court Today

The Citizens' Voice is reporting that a more muscular Harlow Cuadra, than the one seated in the Luzerne County courtroom, tossed a football on a San Diego beach in a home-made video jurors watched Friday in Cuadra’s capital homicide trial.

Today, jurors will likely hear Cuadra talk about the January 2007 killing of Bryan Kocis. Prosecutors are expected to play taped conversations Cuadra and his business partner Joseph Kerekes had with two other men in April 2007 on a nude beach in the La Jolla section of San Diego.

Cuadra could face the death penalty if found guilty of first-degree homicide of Kocis, who was stabbed to death at his Dallas Township home on Jan. 24, 2007, before the Midland Drive house was set on fire. Kerekes, 35, pleaded guilty to second-degree homicide in December and is serving a life sentence.

In the first three days of testimony, prosecution’s case focused on laying a foundation that placed the 27-year-old Cuadra in Northeastern Pennsylvania the night Kocis died. E-mails, as well as computer and financial records were reviewed. Prosecutors showed rental records of a car Cuadra paid for matching the description of the silver sport utility vehicle parked outside Kocis’ house on Jan. 24. Video footage of Cuadra and Kerekes purchasing a knife and pistol from a Virginia Beach, Va., pawn shop days before Kocis died was shown to jurors.

The prosecution’s case became much more direct Friday, in the fourth day of testimony, as Sean Lockhart, a well-known gay pornography actor, testified. Lockhart told jurors about conversations he had with Cuadra leading up to Kocis’ death, as well as comments made after the January 2007 killing. Lockhart had worked for Kocis, but Cuadra and Kerekes were trying to lure the young actor to their pornography business in Virginia Beach.

Lockhart’s testimony only represents half of some of the more damaging testimony against Cuadra, prosecutors say. Grant Roy, Lockhart’s business partner at the time of Kocis death, was wearing a recording device during two conversations he and Lockhart had with Kerekes and Cuadra. The two Virginia Beach men came to San Diego in April 2007 to discuss business with Lockhart and Roy, who were cooperating with Pennsylvania State Police at the time. The four men met twice, once at a restaurant and the next day at the San Diego beach. Roy carried a key chain with a recording device hidden inside during the meeting at the beach, a previous prosecution witness testified.

Roy is expected to testify about the meetings and then prosecutors will likely play the taped conversation.

According to court documents filed in the case, the tape will include several hours of conversation. The tape jurors will hear includes the following excerpt:

“Actually, seeing that (expletive) going down, actually it’s sick, but it made me feel better inside,” Cuadra said, referring to Kocis. “It almost felt like I got revenge and I know that sounds (expletive) up.”

Prosecution is expected to continue its case through most of this week.

We Have Some Rulings!

News flashes coming shortly (done)...

Update 1:29 PM: A Luzerne County judge has ruled prosecutors can not use certain statements homicide suspect Joseph Kerekes made to police regarding the investiation into the death of Brian Kocis.

Update 1:44 PM: PPO also rules that there will be one trial, denying requests by attorneys for homicide suspects Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra to have separate trials.

Update 2:12 PM: Two recorded conversations Cuadra and Kerekes had with Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy in California can be used by prosecutors, Olszewski ruled.

Update 2:55 PM: The Citizen's Voice is reporting that Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes will stand trial together for the January 2007 killing of Bryan Kocis in Dallas Township, and prosecutors will be allowed to present nearly all the evidence they planned to use against the defendants, including recorded conversations and e-mail messages, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. ruled today.

Prosecutors will be permitted to introduce recordings and transcripts of April 2007 conversations in which Cuadra and Kerekes shared details of the killing with two acquaintances in San Diego.

They will be able to introduce a series of e-mail messages Cuadra sent to Kocis under a pseudonym in the days before the killing and physical evidence seized from the defendants' home in Virginia Beach, Va.

But, they will not be allowed to use any of the statements Kerekes made to investigators hours after his arrest in Virginia Beach in May 2007.

Kerekes' attorneys argued those statements, which included references to the killing, were elicited after Kerekes asked for an attorney, as he provided Cpl. Leo Hannon of the Pennsylvania State Police with "biographical information" and listened to an informal reading of the affidavit filed against him.

"At no time did Cpl. Hannon permit the defendant to consult with counsel prior (to) questioning regarding the aforementioned information," Olsewski wrote in a 50-page answer to motions filed earlier this year by Kerekes' attorneys.

Olszewski filed a similar 40-page answer to motions filed by Cuadra's attorneys.

Update @ 4:28 PM: The Times Leader also reports that a Luzerne County judge ruled that there will be one trial, denying requests by attorneys for homicide suspects Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra to have separate trials.

The ruling by Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. is one of several pre-trial issues in anticipation for the scheduled January capital murder trial.

Kerekes, 34, and Cuadra, 27, both from Virginia Beach, Va., are charged in the killing of Bryan Kocis, 44, at Kocis' Dallas Township home in January 2007.

Investigators allege they killed Kocis, whom they considered their main rival in the gay movie production industry.

Attorneys for Kerekes and Cuadra attempted to have separate trials, claiming they may incriminate the other in the murder.

Two recorded conversations Cuadra and Kerekes had with two men in California can be used by prosecutors, Olszewski ruled.

Olszewski did prohibit prosecutors from using statements Kerekes allegedly made to state police Cpl. Leo Hannon Jr.

Kerekes was arrested by Virginia Beach authorities and allegedly made statements while Hannon read him the criminal complaint.

Defendants Joint Reply Brief to Commonwealth's Brief in Opposition to Motion to Supprress April 2007 Interceptions

DEFENDANTS KEREKES’ AND CUADRA’S JOINT REPLY BRIEF TO COMMONWEALTH’S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUPPRESS APRIL 2007 INTERCEPTIONS AT CRABCATCHER’S RESTAURANT AND BLACK’S BEACH

I. Statement of Facts
II. Law and Argument: California Electronic Eavesdropping Law
III. Law and Argument: Pennsylvania Electronic Eavesdropping Law
IV. Law and Argument: Pennsylvania Law Controls
V. Law and Argument: Analysis Under California Law
VI. Conclusion

Statement of Facts

I. Statement of Relevant Facts

On April 27, 2007, Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office Detective Lieutenant Daniel Yursha, Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Leo Hannon, San Diego City Police Department Detectives Robert Donaldson, Lynn Rydalch and Laurie Agnew, San Diego District Attorney’s Office Investigator Ronald Thill, Drug Enforcement Agency Special Agent Andrew Pappas and Naval Criminal Investigative Service Special Agent Kim Kelly, electronically intercepted conversations between Grant Roy, Seañ Lockhart, Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra as they traveled to several locations in La Jolla, California, including Crabcatcher’s Restaurant. Such intercept was executed without a warrant. Such intercept was executed only upon the “consent” of one party to the conversation, Grant Roy. Homicide Investigation Action Report 4/27/07 attached hereto as “Exhibit 1.”

On April 28, 2007, Detective Yursha, Trooper Hannon, Sergeant Donaldson, Agent Pappas and Special Agent Kelly again electronically intercepted conversations between Grant Roy, Sean Lockhart, Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra at Black’s Beach in California. Such intercept was executed without a warrant. Such intercept was executed only upon the consent” of one party to the conversation, Grant Roy. Homicide Investigation Action Report 4/28/08 attached hereto as “Exhibit 2.”

Upon information and belief, Grant Roy was at all relevant times a resident of California. Neither defendant Kerekes nor defendant Cuadra were at any time residents of California or Pennsylvania.

Both interceptions were conducted in California at the request of Pennsylvania law enforcement officials in connection with the investigation in Pennsylvania of the death of Bryan Kocis, for which Pennsylvania authorities eventually arrested the defendants.

Defendants believe, and therefore aver, that the Commonwealth intends to use the intercepts and/or the transcripts of the intercepts at trial in this matter, Further, the Commonwealth has alleged that the intercepts contain potentially incriminatory statements made by defendants Kerekes and/or Cuadra.

Upon information and belief, Grant Roy never gave written consent to the recording of the conversations of April 27 or 28, 2007 to authorities. Upon information and belief, Grant Roy was approached by Pennsylvania law enforcement. He was interviewed several times regarding his knowledge about the death of Bryan Kocis and his prior business dealings with Bryan Kocis by Pennsylvania law enforcement officials prior to acting as an informant in this matter. Such interviews were conducted in the presence of Grant Roy’s counsel and at least one interview was recorded by Grant Roy’s attorney. Grant Roy was solicited by Pennsylvania law enforcement officials to act as an informant.

According to filed legal papers, Grant Roy’s company LSG Media, LLC, was involved in a lawsuit initiated by Bryan Kocis and his company Cobra Video regarding, inter alia, the trademark of Sean Lockhart’s (aka Brent Corrigan’s) name in the gay porn industry. Such lawsuit was ongoing at the time of Bryan Kocis death. Complaint caption Cobra v. Lockhart et al attached hereto as “Exhibit 3.”

Pennsylvania law enforcement considered Grant Roy a “known enemy” of Bryan Kocis. Excerpt of Victim Checklist attached hereto as “Exhibit 4.” Grant Roy had a blog spot and email address titled, “Cobra Killer.” See Transcript of 4/27/07 Intercept at Crabcatcher’s previously filed of record to this docket by the Commonwealth at p. 123-124.

Further, the team of authorities assembled to conduct the electronic intercept did not possess prior approval from an attorney general, deputy attorney general, district attorney, assistant district attorney who independently reviewed the facts and determined that Grant Roy’s “consent” was voluntary.

1. The Commonwealth's document also contains a section titled "Statement of Facts." The Commonwealth's "facts" are not facts at all. Rather, they are conclusions of law and rehtoric of counsel, wholly unsupported by citations to any evidentaiary record.

2. The fact that Kerekes was not a resident of Pennsylvania at the time of the intercept should not impact the analysis. The holdings of the cases discussed infra do not turn on a finding of residency, although as a practical matter in most cases the parties are residents. However, the conflict exists between the forum state and the state where the evidence was collected.

Law and Argument: California Electronic Eavesdropping Law

II. Law and Argument: California Electronic Eavesdropping Law

The relevant portion of California Penal Code §632 states:

§ 632. Eavesdropping on confidential communication; Punishment

(a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication... shall be punished...

(c) The term “confidential communication” includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded.

(Emphasis supplied.)

California Penal Code § 633 creates an exception for law enforcement:

§ 633. Lawful Activity of Law Enforcement Officer

Nothing in Section... 632 [forbidding electronic eavesdropping],... prohibits the Attorney General, any district attorney, or any assistant, deputy or investigator of the Attorney General or any district attorney, any officer of the California Highway Patrol, any chief of police, assistant chief of police, or police officer of a city or city and county, any sheriff, undersheriff, or deputy sheriff, regularly employed and paid in that capacity by a county, or any person acting pursuant to the direction of one of these law enforcement officers acting within the scope of his or her authority, from overhearing or recording any communication that they could lawfully overhear or record prior to the effective date of this chapter.

Pursuant to statutory interpretation by subsequent case law, in California warrantless electronic eavesdropping is authorized where an informant has given voluntary consent and is acting at the direction of one of the law enforcement officers enumerated above. See People V. Towery, 174 Cal.App.3rd 1114, 220 Cal.Rptr. 475 (1985).

In California, Courts analyze whether informant consent is voluntary after the electronic eavesdropping has occurred and factors to consider are whether the informant approached the police or the police approached the informant, whether the informant is motivated by his own present or potential legal problems, whether immunity or other promises have been made by authorities and whether promises or pressure were applied by the police. See ld. at 1124.

3 is an appendix containing the applicable California electronic intercept law for the Court’s convenience, California Penal Code § 632 and 633 and case law referred to in this Brief.

4 phrase “prior to the effective date of this chapter” refers to part 1, title 15, chapter 1.5 of the California Penal Code, which sets forth California’s Invasion of Privacy Act. The effective date of chapter 1.5 was November 8, 1967. See People v. Chavez, 44 Cal 4 1144, 52 CaL.Rptr.2d 347 (1996) citing 49 West’s Ann.Pen.Code (1988 ed,) Effective Dates of Laws, p. XXI.

Law and Argument: Pennsylvania Electronic Eavesdropping Law

III. Law and Argument: Pennsylvania Electronic Eavesdropping Law

Title 18 PaC § 5704 regarding Exceptions to Prohibition of interception and Disclosure of Communications states:

It shall not be unlawful and no prior court approval shall be required under this chapter for:

...

(2) Any investigative or law enforcement officer or any person acting at the direction or request of an investigative or law enforcement officer to intercept a wire, electronic or oral communication involving suspected criminal activities. where:

(ii) one of the parties to the communication has given prior consent to such interception. However, no Interception under this paragraph shall be made unless the Attorney General or a deputy attorney general designated in writing by the Attorney General or the district attorney, or an assistant district attorney designated In writing by the district attorney, of the county wherein the interception is to be made, has reviewed the facts and is satisfied that the consent is voluntary and has given prior approval for the Interception...

in Pennsylvania, one of the government attorneys enumerated above engages in an analysis of the facts surrounding the intercept and the circumstances surrounding the informant’s consent before electronic eavesdropping occurs. The eavesdropping can only occur if the government attorney gives prior approval for the interception. Further, our courts have imposed an affirmative duty for an authorized government attorney to meet with and/or speak to the consenting party personally throughout the period of surveillance and before obtaining consent for each new period of surveillance. See Commonwealth v. Clark, 374 Pa.Super. 308, 313, 542 A 1036, 1039 (1988). The Commonwealth’s attorneys cannot rely on information supplied by others to ascertain the informant’s consent. See Id. at 1040.

* * *

In the instant case, the electronic intercepts were conducted by a team of law enforcement officials that did not contain a government attorney. No government attorney reviewed the facts surrounding the intercept or the circumstances surrounding the purported consent of the informant, Grant Roy, prior to the eavesdrop. No government attorney met with Grant Roy at all before or during the electronic eavesdrop to discuss the facts and determine if his consent was voluntary.

Here, the Court must determine whether California or Pennsylvania law controls the electronic intercept. It is the defendants’ contention that Pennsylvania law controls this situation, Pennsylvania electronic eavesdrop procedure was not followed and therefore the tapes and or transcripts of the electronic eavesdrops should be suppressed. However, if this Court ultimately concludes that California law controls, the defendants assert that the informant Grant Roy was acting at the direction of the appropriate law enforcement officials, but his consent was not voluntary and the communication was intended to be confidential and therefore the tapes and/or transcripts of the electronic eavesdrops should be suppressed.

Law and Argument: Pennsylvania Law Controls

IV. Law and Argument: Pennsylvania Law Controls

The law regarding electronic eavesdropping in California is substantially different than the law in Pennsylvania. Therefore, the Court must decide which law applies to the analysis of the tapes and/or transcripts in the instant case. Contrary to the Commonwealth’s position, Pennsylvania law controls.

The defendants agree that the Commonwealth has articulated the appropriate standard in its brief regarding analysis of conflict of laws. This matter presents a question of conflict between substantive and not procedural laws. See Larrison v. Larrison, 2000 Pa 111, 750 A.2d 895 (2000) (holding that an conflict question between New York and Pennsylvania wiretap statutes involved substantive law.)

“In cases where the substantive laws of Pennsylvania conflict with those of a sister state in the civil context, Pennsylvania courts take a flexible approach which permits analysis of the policies and interests underlying the particular issue before the court. See Griffith v. United Airlines, 416 Pa.1, 203 A.2d 796, 805 (1964). This approach gives the state having the most interest in the question paramount control over the legal Issues arising from a particular factual context, thereby allowing the forum to apply the policy of the JurIsdiction most intimately concerned with the outcome. ld. We believe that a similar approach should be taken in the criminal context where the substantive laws of this Commonwealth conflict with those of a sister state.” Commonwealth v. Sanchez, et a!, 552 Pa. 570, 576, 716 A.2d 1221, 1224 (1998) (Emphasis supplied).

Therefore, this Court must determine which state, California or Pennsylvania, has the most interest in the outcome and apply that state’s law. This analysis compels the result that Pennsylvania law should apply.

The Commonwealth cites to Larrison, supra, Sanchez, supra, and United States v. Geller, 560 F.Supp. 1309 (E.D. Pa. 1963) as support for their position that California law controls. The Commonwealth is wrong. The facts in the cases they cite are distinguishable from the facts in this case in determining which state has the most interest in the outcome.

In Larrison, a New York resident tape recorded a phone conversation with a Pennsylvania resident which was later admitted into evidence in a custody trial against the Pennsylvania resident. Larrison, 750 A.2d at 897. In New York, a resident who receives a telephone call may tape record the conversation without violating New York’s wiretap law. ld. at 898. Such recording would be a violation of Pennsylvania’s wiretap law, ld.

The Larrison recording was made by a private individual in her own residence in New York using her own recording device, not at the behest of or supervised by another state’s law enforcement officers using a concealed electronic eavesdropping device. The purpose of the Larrison recording was not to seek evidence related to an anticipated homicide prosecution, as is the instant case. Pennsylvania was not involved in the recording. Pennsylvania only came upon the recording after it had already occurred.

These are core differences between the Larrison case and the instant case. In arriving at the conclusion that New York law applied in Larrison, the court stated that in that circumstance, Pennsylvania, “ha[s] no power to control the activities that occur within a sister state.” Larrison at 888. In the instant case, Pennsylvania law enforcement officials from both the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office and the Pennsylvania State Police were intimately involved in both electronic intercepts occurring in California. As representatives of Pennsylvania, they concocted the plan to intercept, initiated the intercepts, assembled the team to conduct the intercepts, solicited the informant, determined the method and location in which the intercepts would occur, supervised the intercepts, anticipating that prosecution would occur in Pennsylvania and eventually, they used the intercepts to support the charges filed against the defendant in Pennsylvania. It is only because the informant lives in California that the intercepts occurred in that state.

Because Pennsylvania initiated and orchestrated the electronic eavesdropping and because the result of the eavesdropping was a Pennsylvania prosecution, Pennsylvania has the greatest interest in the outcome.

The Sanchez case makes this distinction even more clear. In Sanchez, a canine sniff of a package in California which was sent to a Pennsylvania resident gave rise to the probable cause necessary for issuance of a Pennsylvania search warrant. Sanchez, 716 A.2d at 1222. The canine sniff was legal under California law but not Pennsylvania law. ld. at 1223. The Sanchez court concluded that California possessed the greater interest in the validity of the canine sniff and because the sniff complied with California law, it could be used to support probable cause in Pennsylvania ld. at 1224.

In reaching this conclusion, the Sanchez court reasoned:

No Pennsylvania state interest would be advanced by analyzing the propriety of the canine sniff under Pennsylvania law because the canine sniff did not occur in Pennsylvania and no Pennsylvania state officer was involved In the canine sniff.

* * *

Thus we hold that if the courts of a sister state determine that a canine sniff is not a search in that state, the propriety of a sniff initiated by that state’s officers and conducted within that state’s borders must be evaluated under the laws of that state.

ld. at 1224, 1225. (Emphasis supplied)

An analysis of the cases in this context compels the result that Pennsylvania law should be applied to the instant case. The involvement of Pennsylvania authorities from the planning stage of the intercept until its completion demonstrates Pennsylvania’s interest. As such, it was incumbent on Pennsylvania authorities to have a government attorney engage in an analysis of the facts surrounding the intercept and the circumstances surrounding the informant’s consent before the intercepts occurred and give prior approval for the interception. Further, the authorized government attorney should have met with and/or spoke to the consenting party personally throughout the period of surveillance and before obtaining consent for each new period of surveillance. See Clark, 542 A.2d at 1039.

Because the appropriate Pennsylvania procedure was not followed, the tapes and/or transcripts of the electronic intercepts from both April 27 and 28, 2007 should be suppressed by this Court.

In anticipation of filing homicide charges because of the death of a Luzerne County resident, it is unbelievable that the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office would assign one of its detectives to initiate and supervise this intercept without first familiarizing itself with Pennsylvania electronic intercept procedure and, in an abundance of caution, sending an assistant district attorney to follow Pennsylvania procedure in case admissibility issues are raised. The Commonwealth now asks this Court to remedy its failure when a human being’s very life is at stake.

5 The defendant is aware that this issue is arguable. In his dissenting opinion in Commonwealth v. Sanchez, 552 Pa. 570, 716 A 1221 (1998), Justice Nigro argued that the canine sniff at issue in that case raised issues of procedural and not substantive law. Justice Nigro quoted Commonwealth v. Dennis, 421 Pa.Super 600, 616, 618 A 972, 980 (1992) on the issue: “It is a fundamental principal (sic) of the conflicts of laws that a court employs its own procedural rules. That is true in both civil in criminal cases, but especially in criminal cases as a sort of corollary to the local nature of substantive criminal law. . . The law of evidence, including the admissibility of specifically offered evidence, has traditionally been characterized as procedural law.” If this Court believes that, in the instant case, the electronic eavesdropping is a matter of procedural law, no further analysis is necessary as the seizure clearly did not comport with Pennsylvania law on the issue. “In conflicts cases involving procedural matters, Pennsylvania will apply its own procedural laws when it is serving as the forum state.” Sanchez at 1223 The Pennsylvania procedure regarding electronic eavesdropping was clearly not followed here. Suppression would therefore be required.

6. ln its brief, the Commonwealth misstates the holding of Sanchez. Offering no analysis, the Commonwealth drops a comparative cite to Sanchez and summarizes its holding, conveniently omitting the operative language boldfaced above The limiting language in the Sanchez holding makes it clear that another state’s search and seizure laws apply in Pennsylvania only when no Pennsylvania officer is involved in the search or seizure. Such is not the case here, as Detective Yursha and Corporal Hannon initiated and were intimately involved in the electronic eavesdrop at issue.

The Commonwealth’s third cited case, United States v. Geller, 560 F.Supp. 1309 (E.D.Pa. 1983) (which the Commonwealth actually uses to quote Commonwealth v. Bennett, 245 Pa Super 457, 369 A 2d 493 (1976)) similarly offers no assistance to them as the wiretap in that case was conducted in New Jersey by New Jersey authorities. The Commonwealth cites two other cases which simply apply Bennett.

Law and Argument: Analysis Under California Law

V. Law and Argument: Analysis Under California Law

In the event this Court decides that California law controls the analysis of the question presented, the tapes and/or transcripts should still be suppressed because Grant Roy’s consent was invalid and/or there was an expectation of privacy in the conversations.

As discussed above, in California an electronic eavesdrop of a confidential communication can be conducted where one party voluntarily consents and is acting at the direction of an enumerated law enforcement officer. See Cailfornia Penal Code § 632 and 633; People v. Towery, 174 Cal.App.3rd 1114, 220 Cal.Rptr. 475 (1985). Grant Roy’s Consent Was Not Voluntary.

California Courts state that factors to consider in assessing whether the informant’s consent is voluntary include whether the informant approached the police or the police approached the informant, whether the informant is motivated by his own present or potential legal problems, whether immunity or other promises have been made by authorities and whether promises or pressure were applied by the police. See Towery at 1124.

Grant Roy was sought out by Pennsylvania law enforcement shortly after Bryan Kocis’ death because Grant Roy was involved in a lawsuit against Bryan Kocis. According to filed legal papers, Grant Roy’s company LSG Media, LLC, was involved in a lawsuit initiated by Bryan Kocis and his company Cobra Video regarding, inter alia, the trademark of Sean Lockhart’s (aka Brent Corrigan’s) name in the gay porn industry. Such lawsuit was ongoing at the time of Bryan Kocis’ death. Complaint Caption Cobra v. Lockhart et al attached hereto as “Exhibit 3.” Pennsylvania law enforcement considered Grant Roy a “known enemy” of Bryan Kocis. Excerpt of Victim Checklist attached hereto as “Exhibit 4.” Grant Roy was interviewed several times regarding his knowledge about the death of Bryan Kocis and his prior business dealings with Bryan Kocis by Pennsylvania law enforcement officials prior to acting as an informant in this matter. Such interviews were conducted in the presence of Grant Roy’s counsel and at least one interview was recorded by Grant Roy’s attorney. Grant Roy was solicited by Pennsylvania law enforcement officials to act as an Informant.

Grant Roy had a blog spot and email address titled, “Cobra Killer.” Transcript of 4/27/07 Intercept at Crabcatcher’s previously filed of record to this docket by the Commonwealth at p. 123-124.

Grant Roy never gave written consent to the recording of the conversations of April 27 or 28, 2007 to authorities, Grant Roy never gave oral consent previous to or during any taped intercept.

From these facts, an inference can be drawn that Grant Roy was initially a person of interest in the homicide of Bryan Kocis. In fact, as Grant Roy himself stated, he thought Bryan Kocis to be “a demon or a pervert,” who he “fuck[ed] with... all the time.” Transcript of 4/27/07 Intercept at Crabcatcher’s previously filed of record to this docket by the Commonwealth at p. 122. Further, Grant Roy recalls that when, “the mother fucker [ Kocis] ends up dead. . . whose got a Cobra Killer blog spot and a Cobra Killer URL?" When Mr. Kerekes states, “You?” Grant Roy replies, “Yeah.” Transcript of 4/27/07 Intercept at Crabcatcher’s previously filed of record to this docket by the Commonwealth at p. 124.

Clearly, Grant Roy perceived that he would be investigated regarding the murder of Bryan Kocis. Grant Roy harbored bad feelings and ill will toward Bryan Kocis. Grant Roy was involved in an intense legal battle with Bryan Kocis during the time of his death. Amidst these circumstances, neither the Commonwealth nor the state of California did anything to document or assure that Grant Roy’s “consent” to wear a wire was voluntary.

If the Court finds that the consent of Grant Roy was involuntary, the Court must also decide whether the communications recorded were “confidential” before it can suppress.

The Conversations Were Confidential and Kerekes Had an Expectation of Privacy

The Commonwealth cites Lieberman v. KCOP Television, Inc., 1 Cal.Rptr.3d 536 (Cal 2003) to explain the parameters of the definition of “confidential communication” contained in California Penal Code §632(c):

The statute defines “confidential communication” as including “any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded... The concept of privacy is relative. (Sanders, supra, 20 Cal4th at p. 916). Whether a person’s expectation of privacy is reasonable may depend on the identity of the person who has been able to observe or hear the subject interaction. ( at p. 923; Shulman, supra, 18 Cal.4th at pp. 233-235). The presence of others does not necessarily make an expectation of prsvacy objectively unreasonable, but presents a question of fact for the jury to resolve,

(Emphasis supplied.)

During both intercepts, Grant Roy, Sean Lockhart (aka Brent Corrigan), Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra were present.

The Commonwealth suggests that because the intercepts occurred at a restaurant and on a beach that, per se, there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy. This argument must fail.

Corporal Hannon states in his report following discussion with Grant Roy regarding the Crabcatcher intercept that during a portion of the conversation, Harlow Cuadra leaned towards Sean Lockhart and silently responded to a question asked of him. This evidences that, at least for portions of the Crabcatcher conversation, the speakers had an expectation of privacy. See Report of Cpl. Hannon attached hereto as “Exhibit 5.” Further, according to the Commonwealth, the second intercept took place at Black’s Beach—a nude beach in California specifically chosen as a meeting location by Cuadra and Kerekes where they would answer any questions because they did not expect either Grant Roy or Sean Lockhart to wear a body wire on a nude beach. See “Exhibit 5’:

Simply because a conversation takes place in a location open to the public does not prove that the speaker intends for his words to be made public, overheard or recorded. The law is clear that it is a factual determination to be made after examining all of the circumstances.

7 In furtherance of this argument, the Commonwealth makes quantum assumptive leaps such as “one can be easily overheard” at the restaurant and that ‘one’s voice can be projected and carried by wind” on the beach. These assertions are wholly speculative and are the unsupported creation of counsel.

Conclusion

VI. Conclusion

For the reasons stated more fully above, Pennsylvania law controls analysis of the electronic eavesdropping because Pennsylvania law enforcement was involved in the surveillance and Pennsylvania has the greater interest in the outcome. Pennsylvania electronic eavesdrop procedure was not followed and therefore the tapes and or transcripts of the electronic eavesdrops should be suppressed. However, if this Court ultimately concludes that California law controls, suppression is still warranted because Grant Roy’s consent was not voluntary and the communication was intended to be confidential. The defendants request preclusion of any evidence, references to or argument regarding all fruits of the intercept.

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

Homicide Investigation Action Report: Post Operation Debriefing

This is the final installment of the homicide investigation action report, in regards to the wiretap of Harlow Cuadra, Joseph Kerekes, Grant Roy, and Sean Lockhart in San Diego/La Jolla California. If you haven't already read Post 1 and/or Post 2 in regards to this subject, please do so first... and this final post should make more sense.

---
POST OPERATION DEBRIEFING: 04/28/07, Grant Andrew ROY

On 04/28/07, a second electronic intercept of conversations between ROY, LOCKHART, CUADRA and KEREKES was conducted at an area known as ‘Blacks Beach”, San Diego, Ca. For specific information relative to said operation, refer to Homicide Action Report of Det. Daniel YURSHA, Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office.

Following that action, a post operation debriefing was conducted by this Trooper with Grant Andrew ROY at the San Diego Police Department Homicide Unit conference room. Said debriefing commenced same date at approx 2045 hrs., and concluded at approx 2319 hrs.. While ROY was being interviewed, he afforded this Trooper with a diagram confirming the location of all parties intercepted while on a beach blanket on the beach. This Trooper also was afforded a recording of said intercept by Drug Enforcement Administration Agent Andrew PAPPAS which was reviewed by this Trooper and ROY. Several photographs taken by Agent PAPPAS during said intercept operation were also stored on the compact disk afforded to this Trooper by Agent PAPPAS.

Compact disk recordings of both electronic intercepts were seized by this Trooper and subsequently transported to Pa State Police Wyoming Barracks and entered into evidence under property #P1-7225S. Original copy of diagram completed by ROY illustrating locations on Black’s Beach was also entered into evidence by this Trooper under property #P1-7225U.

Transcripts of all recordings obtained subsequent to aforementioned operations on 04/27/07 and 04/28/07 were completed by Pa State Police Wyoming cIerk/typist Kathy RYNKIEWICZ. This Trooper reviewed same and advised of any/all corrections to be made.

(PC's note: This report was written by Cpl. L. Hannon of the Pennsylvania State Police.)

Homicide Investigation Action Report: Black's Beach Intercept

Consensual wire (#2) with confidential informant Grant A. ROY on April 28, 2007, San Diego, (La Jolla), California Locations: Marriott Hotel (La Jolla), Torrey Pines State Park, Blacks Beach and back to Marriott Hotel (La Jolla).

SYNOPSIS: On April 28, 2007, Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office Detective Lieutenant Daniel YURSHA, Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Leo HANNON, Sans Diego City Police Department Sergeant Robert DONALDSON, Drug Enforcement Agent Andrew PAPPAS and Naval Criminal Investigator Special Agent Kim Kelly met with, Grant A. ROY, who is being used as a confidential informant to obtain Information (via a second wiretap) from two (2) homicide suspects Harlow CUADRA and Joseph KEREKES of Virginia Beach, Virginia.

DETAILS: On April 28, 2007 at 1:26 P.M.; The above Law Enforcement Personnel met and prepped ROY in a remote area behind the Von’s Super Market located on the corner of Governor and Genesee Drives, La Jolla. Accompanying ROY was his partner Sean LOCKHART (both Roy and LOCKHART participated in a successful wiretap one day earlier April 27, 2007 with the same Law Enforcement Agencies).

On April 28, 2007 at 1:50 P.M.; ROY was given a tape recording key fob (key remote for a vehicle) from Special Agent PAPPAS, the key fob was being used because Roy would be executing the wiretap at a nude beach (Black’s Beach) and therefore couldn’t be body wired. The key fob was activated at this time, and both ROY and LOCKHART drove ROY’S black Ford Expedition, Texas registration number XXXXXX to the La Jolla Marriott Hotel to pick up CUADRA and KEREKES. ROY, who was carrying the recording key fob device, was under constant surveillance.

On April 28, 2007 at 2:03 P.M.; ROY and LOCKHART picked up CUADRA and KEREKES at the La Jolla Marriott Hotel and proceeded to the Torrey Pines State Park.

On April 28, 2007 at 2:15 P.M.; ROY, LOCKHART, CUADRA, and KEREKES arrived at the Torrey Pines State Park, and headed down the steep and lengthy cliff to Black’s Beach, which is a nude beach.

On April 28, 2007 at 2:31 P.M.; ROY, LOCKHART, CUADRA, and KEREKES laid in a remote area on the beach, directly below the Torrey Pines Golf Course.

On April 28, 2007 at 2:36 P.M.; Det, Lt. YURSHA performed a direct, nearby surveillance on the nude beach of informant ROY accompanied by LOCKHART, CUADRA and KEREKES. At 3:39 P.M.; Det. Lt. YURSHA was accompanied by Corporal HANNON and Special Agent KELLY who remained on the beach until the departure of ROY, LOCKHART, CUADRA and KEREKES.

On April 28, 2007 at 5:03 P.M.; ROY, LOCKHART, CUADRA and KEREKES left the Black’s Beach and got into ROY’S black Ford Expedition and left Torrey Pines State Park.

On April 28, 2007 at 5:14 P.M.; ROY, LOCKHART, CUADRA, and KEREKES arrived at the La Jolla Mariott Hotel where they chit-chatted for approximately five (5) minutes before ROY and LOCKHART left.

On April 28, 2007 at 5:29 P.M.; ROY and LOCKHART returned to the rear of Von’s Super Market and met with Law Enforcement Personnel. At 8:25 P.M.; ROY met with investigators at the San Diego City Police Department.

Harlow Cuadra & Joseph Kerekes: This Upcoming Week

While this past week has been very busy, I don't really see the reporting/posts slowing down anytime soon with the Cuadra/Kerekes/Kocis case... here's what I have planned for this upcoming week:

1. Crab Catcher's Transcripts... (behind the scenes details) - homicide investigation action report.

2. Black's Beach Transcripts... (behind the scenes details) - homicide investigation action report.

3. Victim (Bryan Kocis) Checklist done by the Pennsylvania State Police.

4. Copy of defendants' Joseph Kerekes' and Harlow Cuadra's joint reply to DA's brief in opposition to motion to suppress April 2007 interceptions at Crab Catcher's Restaurant and Black's Beach.

... and as usual... I'm sure there will be more.

I've also updated the 'look' in the hopes of making things a little easier to read and follow... a special thanks to a friend of my mine for the assistance.

Attorneys for Cuadra, Kerekes Want Taped Conversation Suppressed From Trial

The Citizens' Voice is reporting that attorneys for accused killers Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes reiterated their position Monday that a potentially incriminating conversation, recorded three months after the murder, should be suppressed, along with firearms, camcorders and other evidence seized from Cuadra’s home in Virginia Beach, Va.

Stephen Menn and Michael Senape, who represent Cuadra, and Shelley Centini and John Pike, who represents Kerekes, filed joint briefs Monday, renewing claims that the recording and the evidence were both obtained illegally.

Cuadra, 26, and Kerekes, 34, both of Virginia Beach, Va., are accused of killing Bryan Kocis, 46, the owner of a rival company that produced gay pornographic films, in Dallas Township in January 2007.

They are accused of slashing Kocis’ neck to the point of near decapitation, stabbing his torso nearly 30 times and later setting fire to his Midland Drive home. They both face the death penalty.

A suppression hearing is scheduled for 8:30 a.m. Thursday before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. Cuadra and Kerekes are scheduled to stand trial beginning Sept. 2.

Prosecutors said prior to the murder, Cuadra and Kerekes complained Kocis had been impeding their expansion into a new genre of films.

Cuadra and Kocis had wanted to recruit actor Sean Lockhart, who appeared under the stage name “Brent Corrigan,” but Lockhart was under contract to work only for Kocis.

Cuadra and Kerekes met with Lockhart and his business partner, Grant Roy, at an awards show in Las Vegas in early January 2007 and again in San Diego in April 2007.

Roy acted as an informant during the San Diego visit, and wore a recording device as Cuadra spoke in detail about killing Kocis, prosecutors said.

The attorneys for Cuadra and Kerekes said Pennsylvania law, which requires a government attorney review the facts and meet with the informant to determine his consent is voluntary before recording takes place, applies to the conversation, even though it took place in California.

If Olszewski decides the recording is governed by California law, which allows greater leeway for electronic surveillance by law enforcement, the attorneys said, “suppression is still warranted because Grant Roy’s consent was not voluntary and the communication was intended to be confidential.”
---

There's also a similar story in the Times Leader.

Kerekes Purchased Knife Hours Before Kocis was Killed

The Times Leader is reporting that homicide suspect Joseph Kerekes sought legal advice from an inmate while jailed at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility, according to an investigative report.

Kerekes, 34, told Robert Leo Rodden certain details about the slaying of adult gay film producer Bryan Kocis that were otherwise not known by the public, the report states.

According to the report, Kerekes told Rodden, 42, that he purchased a knife at the Wal-Mart Supercenter in Wilkes-Barre Township. Investigators with the state police at Wyoming and Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office obtained a receipt from Wal-Mart showing that a knife had been purchased at the local store hours before Kocis, 44, was killed inside his Dallas Township home on Jan. 24, 2007.

The knife was one of four items purchased at the store, the receipt says.

Rodden, who is serving more than five years in state prison for a stabbing in Edwardsville in February 2007, is one of several people expected to testify at a pre-trial hearing before Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. on Tuesday.

Prosecutors allege in arrest records that Kerekes, and his partner, Harlow Cuadra, 26, both from Virginia Beach, Va., stabbed Kocis, their rival in the gay porn industry, and then set his Midland Drive home on fire.

Luzerne County Assistant District Attorneys Michael Melnick, Tim Doherty, Shannon Crake and William Dunn are seeking the death penalty. Jury selection is tentatively set to begin Sept. 2.

Cuadra’s attorneys, Paul Galante, Mike Senape and Steve Menn, are seeking separate trials for the two men as a result of Kerekes’ statements that implicate Cuadra in the killing, according to court records.

Kerekes maintained that he was inside a motel room at the Fox Ridge Inn in Plains Township while Cuadra, under the disguise of another name, drove to Kocis’ home, court records indicate. Cuadra attempted to set up his own alibi, according to court records, claiming he was working as a male escort and with a customer in a Virginia Beach hotel at the time Kocis was killed.

Cuadra’s lawyers are expected to ask the judge during Tuesday’s pre-trial hearing to prohibit prosecutors from using a conversation that was recorded on a nude beach near San Diego in April 2007.

There, investigators say in arrest records, Cuadra and Kerekes told Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart details about the actual killing. Roy is an adult film producer and Lockhart was a model for Kocis’ company, Cobra Video.

A day before the beach conversation was recorded, investigators also recorded a conversation the four men had at a San Diego restaurant where they discussed forming a partnership to produce pornographic movies.

Prosecutors are expected to file a transcript of the restaurant conversation in court on Monday.

"All Our Plates Have Been Run"

From the Black's Beach Tapes:

"JOSEPH KEREKES: He was telling us to stay in South Beach to stay there, it's not safe, I said Barry everything looks good for us here, I wanna go home, I don't wanna lose our house, and we came home and its been fine. All our plates have been run by our State Trooper down at the end, everyday we ask him to and we're fine."

That would most likely be witness #198 ... Andrew Jordan who allegedly ran the plates. Trooper Andrew Jordan does live on Stratem Court, just down the street from Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes's house... at the 'end' of the Birdneck Woods cul-de-sac (I'm not posting the address).

So either what Joe said during the Black's Beach Tapes was a lie (no surprise if it was)... or Trooper Jordan might just want to consider another occupation if he already hasn't done so. Interestingly... Andrew Jordan is still on the DA's witness list... so perhaps we'll find out the truth sometime soon.