Bryan Kocis' Sister Comments...

Bryan Kocis' sister Melody was gracious enough to comment on my blog earlier today, and after reading her comment, I feel that it's only appropriate to make it a separate post (I certainly hope the family doesn't mind me doing so):
---

After reading this blog, and living this nightmare for the past 2 years, I feel compelled to say something now that the gag order is lifted and the trial is over.

It has been a long horrible road. I’ve lost my best friend/brother to a crime that was so brutal, thoughtless and senseless that it makes me sick. It should have never happened. Our family will never be the same again, he was the best son, brother and uncle anyone could ever ask for. He never once disrespected any of us. No one deserves to die like Bryan did, and no family deserves to go through what we have.

I have read PC’s blog for the past two years and appreciate the accuracy of his posts. It truly amazed me how some people would blog and think their opinions were fact, or some bloggers believed lies from others and accepted that as fact. I’ve regretted not being able to speak out for my brother, but I know people will believe what they want anyway.

Those of us who have been fortunate to be in Bryan’s life know what a kind, caring, loving, generous and loyal person he was, and for those of you who didn’t know him it’s your loss. Bryan was a good, honest person in a bad, dishonest business. He was known for giving everyone the benefit of the doubt. Bryan made mistakes, but he was a victim of horrible crime, and it was sad how many people forgot that.

Sean Lockhart was Bryan’s biggest mistake. He cared for Sean very much, and Sean did nothing but hurt him. I was with Bryan when Sean told him he wasn’t coming back to finish his contract with Cobra, and that he was starting his own company. Bryan just bought him a car. I will never forget how upset Bryan was. Unfortunately Bryan is not here to tell his side of the story. Bryan also told me how he made up with Sean before he died, and because Sean was a very good witness and helpful to the case I will let go of the past. I know Sean and Grant did not commit this murder, and my family appreciates their testimony.

I am very grateful to Bryan’s good friends who have been there for us since the beginning, and I hope to stay close with them in the future. They have been a huge source of comfort.

When I spoke with Robert I was disappointed Harlow didn’t received the death penalty, but after thinking about how much weight Harlow lost to “look the part” for this trial I realized how he will be eaten alive in State Prison. Joe looked horrible after a couple of months, but at least he still had some muscle on him to defend himself. Harlow won’t be able to do that. I also like Robert’s postcard idea...lol!!!

I would also like to add that at least Joe had the decency to apologize to us for not stopping the murder, and he didn't make us go through a trial. Harlow thought the twelve jurors would believe his lies like others did, but he was very wrong. We felt sorry for his family until they were very disrespectful and mean to us and the jury. His dysfunctional upbringing is not an excuse for what he did to my brother.

Bryan had a wonderful childhood, he had a family that cared deeply about him, and we never spent anytime apart…..until this. After watching my parents cry hysterically holding their son’s ashes, and having to go through his burnt belongings or just the crime itself, it is just sad Harlow couldn’t apologize to us, but that just goes to show you who and what he really is. He only cares about himself.

I couldn’t possibly name everyone, but I would like to thank everyone that helped bring this case to justice and for those that supported us. We will never forget.

Melody

Cuadra Trial... Day 3 Overview

A report from the Times Leader says... Robert Wagner said he told his best friend, Bryan Kocis, that the man who had applied to become a gay pornographic film model was not right for the part.

Kocis sought Wagner’s advice on the potential new model named Danny Moilin for Kocis’ production company, Cobra Video.

“I didn’t think he would be good; he was muscular and old,” Wagner said about Moilin in testimony Thursday in the murder trial of Harlow Cuadra.

Kocis went ahead and invited Moilin into his Midland Drive, Dallas Township, residence on Jan. 24, 2007. Township firefighters found Kocis dead that night inside his burned-out home.

Investigators allege Cuadra, 27, set up several e-mail accounts in the days before Jan. 24 and sent Kocis two applications under the fictitious name of Danny Moilin. The applications were Cuadra’s way to get invited into Kocis’ home to kill his main rival in the pornographic movie industry, prosecutors claim.

Cuadra and his partner, Joseph Kerekes, 35, both from Virginia Beach, Va., were charged with Kocis’ murder. Kerekes pleaded guilty in December to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life without parole.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Cuadra if he is convicted of first-degree homicide.

Wagner, who testified Thursday, said Kocis was “reclusive” and didn’t allow anyone inside his home unless he was expecting someone.

“He never let anyone in; if someone came to the door, he just wouldn’t answer it. He definitely wanted notice that someone was coming,” Wagner testified.

He said Kocis told him he was meeting a potential new model on Jan. 24, and that Kocis was “really excited about it.”

Kocis’ company accepted model applications on its Web site, and he would often ask Wagner for his opinions. Shortly after receiving the new model applications, Wagner said, Kocis was in the process of settling a year-long federal civil lawsuit he filed against his actor, Sean Lockhart, and Lockhart’s business agent, Grant Roy.

“He was about to do cartwheels because he was settling the civil lawsuit,” Wagner said.

Wagner did tell Cuadra’s lawyers, Joseph D’Andrea and Paul Walker, that there was tension among Kocis, Lockhart and Roy despite the suit being settled out-of-court.

“It was a business relationship. They all had to share the same sandbox,” Wagner described the situation.

While Kocis was settling the lawsuit with Lockhart and Roy, investigators allege Cuadra and Kerekes met Lockhart and Roy during the adult video news award ceremony in Las Vegas, Nev., in mid-January 2007.

Assistant district attorneys Michael Melnick, Shannon Crake and Allyson Kacmarski claim Cuadra and Kerekes killed Kocis to avoid paying Cobra Video 20 percent of proceeds from movies involving Lockhart.

After Kocis was killed, prosecutors allege Kocis’ home was set on fire to cover up the murder. The jury of eight men and four women got a good look at Kocis’ fire-damaged door and plasma television that investigators brought into the courtroom on Thursday.

The jury also was shown a series of photographs of Kocis’ burned home.

State police Trooper Michael Boone, a member of the forensic services unit, testified Kocis’ body was found on a couch, and the fire started near the door behind a love seat. Several smoke detectors were found on tables and the floor, apparently pulled from the ceiling and wall, Boone said.

Several Midland Drive residents testified that they saw Kocis’ house on fire just after 8:30 p.m. Jan. 24. Two of the witnesses also said they saw a light-colored SUV parked in Kocis’ driveway earlier that night.

Prosecutors allege Cuadra rented a silver 2004 Nissan XTerra from Enterprise Car Rental in Virginia Beach on Jan. 23, and returned the vehicle on Jan. 25 with more than 1,000 miles on the odometer.

Thirty-four witnesses have been called to testify in three days of the trial that began on Tuesday before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.

Prosecutors are expected to call Roy and Lockhart to testify and to play two recorded conversations they had with Cuadra and Lockhart in San Diego, Calif., on April 27 and April 28, 2007.

Investigators claim Cuadra and Lockhart made several admissions about Kocis’ murder to Roy and Lockhart.

Testimony is expected to resume at 8:30 a.m. today.
---

Meanwhile, the Citizens' Voice gives a good account of what Kocis' neighbors testified to... the fire that ravaged Bryan Kocis’ Dallas Township home was “large, huge, something I’ve never seen before,” a neighbor testified Thursday.

Amy Lynne Withers had lived next door to Kocis on Midland Drive for 20 years, on Jan. 24, 2007, when the fire at his house grew so large she had to evacuate her own home.

Five of Kocis’ neighbors testified Thursday in the capital homicide trial of Harlow Cuadra. None of them knew Kocis well, or had even met him, but they were the first to report the crime or see a silver sport utility vehicle parked in his driveway.

Withers said she was aware of Kocis’ involvement in the gay pornography industry, but little more. While waiting for her friend, Amy Zamerowski, 27, to arrive, Withers said she heard a single car door slam outside her home, but never saw the car.

When Zamerowski arrived about an hour later at 8:26 p.m., she testified that she saw a light-colored SUV pulling out of Kocis’ driveway. She testified that she heard a “steady beeping” emanating from Kocis’ house as she walked toward Withers’ front door. Withers and Zamerowski said nothing was out of the ordinary until approximately 8:40 p.m., when someone banged loudly on the front door to alert them that Kocis’ house was on fire.

James Gilbert testified that while walking his dog on Midland Drive, he passed Kocis’ house.

“I saw a silver SUV parked next to Kocis’ car in the driveway,” he said.

He did not see the SUV’s license plate number.

Donna Yachim of 45 Midland Drive, lived across the street from Kocis, and observed the SUV driving up Midland Drive.

“The SUV was driving abnormally slow as if it were looking for a property,” she said.

She could not identify any person in the car or see the license plate number. Yachim also said her view of Kocis’ driveway was obscured and she could not determine if the SUV pulled into his driveway.

Yachim’s daughter, Kaytlin, saw Kocis’ house was on fire from her bedroom window and told her mother, who promptly dialed 911.
---
Also from the Citizens' Voice... Bryan Kocis was a reclusive man.

He kept several pistols hidden throughout his house for protection, and if people stopped by his Dallas Township home unannounced, he wouldn’t answer the door, a friend and former actor of Kocis’ testified Thursday.

In January 2007, however, Kocis let his guard down. He was thrilled with his gay pornography business. He had just settled a year-long legal issue with one of his actors, and a potential new model was supposed to audition at his home on Jan. 24, 2007, the day Kocis was killed, Robert Wagner said in the third day of testimony in the capital homicide trial of Harlow Cuadra.

“(Kocis) was very excited. He thought (the model) was very cute,” said Wagner, who worked for Kocis’ Cobra video starting in 2000, acting, shooting video among other things.

Cuadra, prosecutors allege, killed Kocis to eliminate him as a rival of the gay pornography business he co-owned with Joseph Kerekes in Virginia Beach, Va. Kerekes pleaded guilty in December to second-degree homicide and is serving a life sentence.

Cuadra and Kerekes wanted to hire Sean Lockhart, who acted under the name Brent Corrigan, but Kocis was an impediment, previous witnesses said.

Kocis was in a legal disagreement with Lockhart, and his partner Grant Roy, Wagner testified, but the men had reached an agreement about filming rights in early January 2007 during meetings in Las Vegas and later San Diego. Everyone was happy with the new arrangement, Wagner remembered, and they had a party in San Diego to celebrate.

“The weight of the world had been lifted off (their) shoulders,” Wagner said.

Wagner visited Kocis the weekend before he was killed. In the days leading to his death, Kocis and Wagner talked daily on the phone, particularly about the model who applied online at Kocis’ Web site and called himself Danny Moilin. Wagner reviewed photos Moilin sent Kocis with his application. The man in the photos, which were shown to the jury, appears to be Cuadra.

Prosecutors have called 35 witnesses so far, but are only about a third of the way through their case. Several of Kocis’ neighbors testified Thursday they saw a silver sport utility vehicle parked in the Kocis driveway the night he was killed. Two days earlier Cuadra used his Discover card to rent a silver Nissan Xterra, from a Virginia Beach business, an employee of Discover Financial testified.

Five pistols were found hidden throughout Kocis’ house, state Trooper Michael Boone testified. Boone testified about evidence investigators found at the crime scene, and will resume his testimony today.

Andrew Pappas, a Drug Enforcement Agency officer in San Diego, testified Thursday he helped investigators with a recording device inside a key chain used to record a conversation among Cuadra, Kerekes, Roy and Lockhart at a nude beach in the San Diego area.

Cuadra admitted to the crimes, prosecutors say, in the taped conversation, which hasn’t been played for the jury yet. Roy and Lockhart are expected to testify to the tape and other conversations they had with Cuadra about Kocis.

Affidavit in Support of Application for Search Warrant

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

PPO's Memorandum: Harlow Cuadra (Part 1)

Note: Since this memorandum is approx. 43 pages in length, I've posted it in three, easier to follow parts:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

MEMORANDUM

BY: HONORABLE PETER PAUL OLSZEWSKI, JR.

I. INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE

The Commonwealth and Defendant agree that Defendant is entitled to individual voir dire. See Pa. R.Crim.P. 631(E). (N.T. July 8, 2008 at page 4).

II. MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENUE/VENIRE

Based upon the holding in Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002), the Court will hold Defendant’s Motion in abeyance pending appropriate inquiry regarding the nature and extent of prospective jurors’ exposure to pretrial publicity. (N.T. July 8, 2008 at pages 4-10).

III. MOTION IN LIMINE - PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs of a deceased victim are not inflammatory per Se. The admission into evidence of photographs depicting the corpse of a homicide victim or the location and scene of the crime lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. A photograph which is judged not to be inflammatory is admissible if it is relevant and can assist the jury in understanding the facts. A gruesome or potentially inflammatory photograph is admissible if it is of such essential evidentiary value that its need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors. Commonwealth v Garcia, 505 Pa. 304, 313, 479 A.2d 473, 478 (1984).

During the Motions hearing held on July 8, 2008 the Court viewed all photographs objected to by Defense Counsel. Using the aforementioned standard the Court ruled on the admissibility of each of the photographs in question. (N.T. July 8, 2008 at pages 11-43).

IV. MOTION IN LIMINE — USE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD

The Commonwealth stipulated that both Defendant Kerekes and Defendant Cuadra have no prior criminal records and therefore no such evidence will be introduced at trial. (N.T. July 8, 2008 at pages 43-44).

V. MOTION IN LIMINE — PROHIBIT USE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR BAD ACTS

In their Omnibus Pretrial Motions each Defendant moves to prohibit use of the Defendants’ prior bad acts.

Additionally, the Commonwealth, in its Notice of Commonwealth’s Intention to Seek to Admit Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts Pursuant to Pa. Rule of Evidence 404(b), filed on November 6, 2007, gives Notice of intention to seek admission of certain conduct it alleges constitutes a prior bad act. In its supporting brief and during oral argument held on July 30, 2008 (See N.T. pages 3-28) the Commonwealth specifically referred to this request to seek to introduce evidence of the following conduct:

A. DEFENDANT’S ESCORT BUSINESS AND ALLEGED PROSTITUTION.

The Commonwealth alleges Defendants operated a male escort business and that each Defendant solicited certain clients of that business to fabricate a false alibi, in order to support their claim that they were not present in Dallas Township when the homicide occurred. More specifically, the Commonwealth alleges that Defendant Cuadra solicited Mitch Halford, an alleged long-standing escort client of Mr. Cuadra’s, to indicate that he was with the Defendant on January 24, 2007, the evening of the murder.

The Commonwealth alleges that Defendant Cuadra sent Nep Maliki a letter instructing him to tell authorities that he went to Cuadra’s residence at 1028 Stratem Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia for an escort call on the evening of January 24,2007. The Commonwealth further alleges that Cuadra instructed Maliki to detail their conduct that evening which conduct, if true, could constitute prostitution. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 5-9).

The Commonwealth further alleges that Defendant Kerekes solicited Mr. Brannon to tell authorities that Kerekes provided him with escort services at the Fox Ridge Inn, Plains Township, Pennsylvania on the evening of January 24, 2007. (See NT. July 30, 2008 at pages 9-11).

Finally, the Commonwealth alleges that both Defendants contacted David Michaels, again soliciting a fake alibi involving an escort call. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 11-12).

It is certainly clear that evidence that a Defendant has solicited false alibi testimony is admissible as substantive evidence of consciousness of guilt. See Commonwealth v. Young, 748 A.2d 166 (Pa. 1999); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 668 A.2d 97 (Pa. 1995); Commonwealth v. Carbone, 547 A.2d 584, 589 (Pa. 1990).

At the same time, however, it is equally clear that while Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) allows evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts to be admitted to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident, 404(b)(3) limits the admission of such evidence to where its probative value outweighs the potential for prejudice.

Under these circumstances, while the Court will allow the Commonwealth to present evidence of Defendants’ alleged solicitation to seek false alibis, the Commonwealth will not be permitted to present evidence of an escort service or of alleged prostitution.

B. FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ROBERT WAGNER, GRANT ROY AND SEAN LOCKHART.

The Commonwealth broadly suggests that during certain of the intercepted conversations at Crab Catcher’s Restaurant and on Black Beach, as well as in certain Virginia Beach prison intercepts, that the Defendants discussed attempts to accuse Robert Wagner, Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart of involvement in the murder of Bryan Kocis.

During oral argument held on July 30, 2008 the Commonwealth withdrew its request to present such evidence during its case-in-chief, and instead will consider using it as potential rebuttal evidence. (See NJ. July 30, 2008 at pages 18-21).

Under these circumstances the Court obviously need not make any ruling on this issue.

C. DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITATION TO MAKE UNDER THE TABLE PAYMENTS TO RECRUIT BRENT CORRIGAN TO THEIR STABLE OF ACTORS.

Here the Commonwealth requests to introduce evidence that (1) Defendants attempted to circumvent a settlement agreement between L.S.G. and Cobra Video wherein L.S.G. was required to make payment to Cobra Video for its use of Sean Lockhart in its videos; (2) to lure Sean Lockhart away from making videos for Cobra Video and into videos for L.S.G. The Commonwealth argues that while such conduct is not criminal in nature, it qualifies as a bad act in that it advances the Commonwealth’s theory of their case that the motive behind the murder of Bryan Kocis was to recruit Sean Lockhart for L.S.G. and away from Cobra Video. The Commonwealth would produce evidence that Defendants solicited and would secretly pay Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy to make secret videos for L.S.G. without making the required payments of twenty percent of revenue from these videos to Cobra Video. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 21-28).

Ultimately the Commonwealth argues that by murdering Bryan Kocis, the Defendants would not be required to make the payments to Cobra Video, and would not need to resort to luring Roy and Lockhart to make secret videos.

Should the Commonwealth be able to develop such evidence, the Court believes that it would promote a possible motive for the murder and that its probative value would outweigh prejudice to the Defendants. With proper offers of proof the Court will allow such testimony.

D. VIRGINIA FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS.

The Commonwealth declined to develop the nature and theory of such testimony and instead indicated that such evidence may only become relevant as rebuttal evidence in a potential penalty phase of the trial. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 28-29).

E. BURGLARY CHARGES.

The Commonwealth originally sought to introduce testimony that the Defendants were also charged with burglary on the basis of an alleged illegal entry into the Kocis home. During oral argument, this request was modified to eliminate any mention of burglary charges, and to simply submit evidence as to how entry was made to the Kocis home. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 29-31).

VI. MOTION TO SUPPRESS ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS

The Commonwealth intends to offer evidence that Defendant Cuadra made the following statements:

A. Defendant’s electronically recorded oral statements and conversations at Crab Catcher’s Restaurant in La Hoya, California on April 27, 2007;

B. Defendant’s electronically recorded oral statements and conversations at Black Beach, San Diego, California on April 28, 2007;

C. Defendant’s oral statement given to Detective Lieutenant Yursha and Sergeant Higgins on May 15, 2007 in the Virginia Beach Police Department.

D. Defendant’s blurt out while on the Pennsylvania Turnpike in the vicinity of the Lehigh Tunnel on June 17, 2007.

The Court adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. DEFENDANT’S ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED STATEMENTS AND CONVERSATION AT CRAB CATCHER’S RESTAURANT IN LA HOYA, CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 27, 2007.

1. Corporal Leo Hannon, a twelve and one-half year veteran of the Pennsylvania State Police, is the lead investigator into the homicide of Bryan Charles Kocis. Corporal Hannon is currently assigned to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation in Harrisburg, and has a total of eighteen years experience in law enforcement. (NT. July 28, 2008 at page 9).

2. As part of this investigation, beginning February 10, 2007,Corporal Hannon made contact with Grant Roy of San Diego, California and conducted a number of interviews with Mr. Roy and his legal Counsel. Mr. Roy has been and continues to be a cooperating witness in the Kocis homicide investigation. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 204; 209).

3. Grant Roy knew the victim, Bryan Kocis, from their involvement in the gay pornographic industry. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 206).

4. Grant Roy and Bryan Kocis were not friends. Roy did not care for Kocis and has described him as a “demon” and “pervert”. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 212; 218-219).

5. Prior to his death, Bryan Kocis operated Cobra Video which produced gay pornographic videos. (NT. July 28, 2008 at page 217).

6. Sean Lockhart afkfa Brent Corrigan, previously worked as an ‘actor” for Cobra Video and Bryan Kocis. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 217).

7. At some point Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart became both business partners and “friends”. (NT. July 28, 2008 at pages 2 16-217).

8. Sometime during “2005-2006” Cobra Video sued LSG Media, Inc.° concerning the use of Sean Lockhart as an actor in gay pornographic videos. LSG Media, Inc. filed counterclaims against Cobra. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 206-208).

9. Following depositions and mediation, on or about January 18, 2007 a settlement was reached in the aforesaid civil litigation whereby Cobra Video was granted the use of Lockhart in certain “scenes” and further over the next four years LSG Media, Inc. would pay Cobra Video twenty (20%) percent of its revenue from videos using Lockhart. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 206; 212).

10. On or about April 27, 2007 Corporal Hannon and various other Pennsylvania Law Enforcement officials traveled to San Diego, California to personally interview witnesses and to further the Kocis investigation. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 171).

11. While in San Diego, Corporal Hannon worked closely with Detective Robert Donaldson of the San Diego Police Department. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 171-172).

12. Corporal Hannon advised Detective Donaldson that Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra had been identified as suspects in the Kocis killing. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 172).

13. During continued interviews between law enforcement officials and Grant Roy and his Counsel, Roy agreed to act as an informant and to wear a body wire or transmitter to intercept conversations with Kerekes and Cuadra. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 197-198; 220).

14. The San Diego Police Department planned, supervised, and conducted the actual interception of conversations between Roy, Lockhart, Kerekes and Cuadra. Detective Donaldson acted as the Supervising Detective for the intercepts and Detective Andrew Pappas, also of the San Diego Police Department, acted as the Technical Officer and arranged for the fitting, operation, transmission and recording of the intercepted conversations. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 191-192).

15. Detective Daniel Vursha of the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office assisted the San Diego Police in surveillance of the two interceptions. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 191).

16. The first electronic interception took place on April 27, 2007 at Crab Catcher’s Restaurant in La Hoya, California. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 200).

17. Grant Roy orally consented to acting as an informant and participating in the interception on April 27, 2007. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 196-197). This consent was expressed to San Diego Detective Donaldson.

18. Roy consented to wearing a body wire. He never withdrew his consent. He was under no pressure from any law enforcement agency regarding consent. Law enforcement officials made no promises or threats. Roy received no compensation for acting as an informant and had no charges pending against him at the time. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 187-198).

19. San Diego Detectives never requested written consent from Mr. Roy. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 219-220).

20. Roy never met with any District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General prior to participating in the intercept. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 219).

21. After Detective Pappas fitted Roy with the body wire, Roy and Lockhart picked up Defendants Kerekes and Cuadra at a local hotel and drove to the Crab Catcher’s Restaurant for lunch. Lockhart was aware that Roy was “wired” and agreed to be present during the interception. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 198-199).

22. Roy’s body wire transmitted the conversations between Roy, Lockhart, Kerekes and Cuadra while they dined at Crab Catcher’s Restaurant. Those conversations were simultaneously intercepted and recorded by San Diego Police. (NT. July 28, 2008 at pages 173-174).

23. At the conclusion of the luncheon, Roy made arrangements to meet Defendants Kerekes and Cuadra at the hotel the following day and go to Black Beach. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 200-201).

24. Corporal Hannon and the other Pennsylvania law enforcement officials who were present in San Diego at the time of the intercept played a de minimis, inconsequential role in the intercept of the Crab Catcher’s conversation. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 191-192).

B. DEFENDANT’S ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED STATEMENTS AND CONVERSATION AT BLACK BEACH, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 28, 2007.

25. On April 28, 2007 Grant Roy met with San Diego Detectives Donaldson and Pappas prior to meeting Kerekes and Cuadra. (NT. July 28, 2008 at page 201).

26. Grant Roy orally agreed and consented to acting as an informant and participating in the interception on April 27, 2007. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 180-181; 201). The consent was expressed to San Diego Detective Donaldson.

27. Roy consented to wearing a body wire. He never withdrew consent. He was under no pressure from any law enforcement agency to agree to consent. Law enforcement officials made no promises or threats. Roy received no compensation for acting as an informant and had no charges pending against him at the time. (NT. July 28, 2008 at pages 180-181; 201-202).

26. The San Diego Police Department planned, supervised, and conducted the actual interception of conversations between Roy, Lockhart, Kerekes and Cuadra. Detective Donaldson acted as the Supervising Detective for the intercepts and Detective Andrew Pappas, also of the San Diego Police Department acted as the Technical Officer and arranged for the fitting, operation, transmission and recording of the intercepted conversations. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 188; 191).

29. On April 28, 2007, San Diego Detectives never requested written consent from Mr. Roy. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 184-185).

30. On April 28, 2007, Roy never met with any District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General prior to participating in the intercept. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 184).

31. Detective Pappas provided Roy with an electronic key remote which acted as a transmitter for the interception of conversations with Kerekes and Cuadra at Black Beach. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 187).

32. Black Beach is a public nude beach located at the base of Torrey Pines Golf Course in San Diego, California. Because Roy anticipated being nude, wearing a body wire was obviously impossible, and thus Detective Pappas fit him with the key remote which would serve as the transmitter. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 179-180; 187).

33. On April 28, 2007, Roy and Lockhart then went to Defendants’ motel and transported Kerekes and Cuadra to Black Beach where Roy’s key remote electronically transmitted the conversations and statements made by Kerekes and Cuadra. Those conversations were simultaneously intercepted and recorded by San Diego Police. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 186-187).

34. Corporal Hannon and the other Pennsylvania law enforcement officials were who present in San Diego at the time of the intercept played a de minimis, inconsequential role in the intercept of the Black Beach conversations. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 178; 191-192).

C. DEFENDANT’S ORAL STATEMENT GIVEN TO DETECTIVE LIEUTENANT YURSHA AND SERGEANT HIGGINS ON MAY 15, 2007 IN THE VIRGINIA BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT.

35. On May 15, 2007 Luzerne County Detective Lieutenant Daniel Yursha and Dallas Township Police Sergeant Douglas Higgins met with Defendant Cuadra in an interview room at the Virginia Beach Police Department. After Yursha read Cuadra Miranda warnings, Yursha also read the ten page Criminal Complaint and twenty-one page Affidavit of Probable Cause. Yursha and Higgins then left the interview room.

36. Yursha re-entered the interview room approximately seven minutes later and again asked Cuadra if he wanted anything to eat or drink. Cuadra refused the offer but blurted out the following statements:

Cuadra stated he bought the knife and the 38 caliber pistol from a pawn shop on the same date. (The knife was seized from the glove compartment of the BMW; the revolver was seized from the search of 1028 Stratem Court). Cuadra also stated they “never went to a gay bar that night” (referring to a witness’ statement that she believes she saw them at a gay bar located near the Fox Ridge Inn in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania). Cuadra also stated that “Joe didn’t do it”. These statements by Cuadra were not in response to any questioning by Yursha or Higgins.

37. During the Pretrial Hearing on July 24, 2008, Defense Counsel stated they are not challenging this statement. (NT. July 24, 2008 at pages 96-98).

D. DEFENDANT’S BLURT OUT WHILE ON THE PENNSYLVANIA TURNPIKE IN THE VICINITY OF THE LEHIGH TUNNEL.

38. On June 17, 2007, Pennsylvania law enforcement authorities transported Defendant Cuadra from Virginia Beach, Virginia to Luzerne County, Pennsylvania. Prior to being placed in an unmarked Pennsylvania State Police vehicle, Cuadra was once again advised of his Miranda rights. Cuadra acknowledged these rights but refused to sign a waiver. While traveling through the Lehigh Tunnel on the Northeast Extension of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, Cuadra stated, “I remember this. It’s a long tunnel”. This statement was not in response to any questions or comments by law enforcement officials.

39. During the pretrial hearing on July 24, 2008 Defense Counsel stated they were not challenging this statement. (N.T. July 24, 2008 at pages 96-98).

PPO's Memorandum: Joseph Kerekes (Part 1)

Note: Since this memorandum is approx. 51 pages in length, I've posted it in three, easier to follow parts:

• Part 1
• Part 2
• Part 3

MEMORANDUM

BY: HONORABLE PETER PAUL OLSZEWSKI, JR.

I. INDIVIDUAL VOIR DIRE

The Commonwealth and Defendant agree that Defendant is entitled to individual voir dire. See Pa. R.Crim.P. 631(E). (N.T. July 8, 2008 at page 4).

II. MOTION FOR CHANGE OF VENU FIVE WIRE

Based upon the holding in Commonwealth v. Drumheller, 808 A.2d 893 (Pa. 2002), the Court will hold Defendant’s Motion in abeyance pending appropriate inquiry regarding the nature and extent of prospective jurors’ exposure to pretrial publicity. (N.T. July 8, 2008 at pages 4-10).

III. MOTION IN LIMINE - PHOTOGRAPHS

Photographs of a deceased victim are not inflammatory per se. The admission into evidence of photographs depicting the corpse of a homicide victim or the location and scene of the crime lies within the sound discretion of the trial judge. A photograph which is judged not to be inflammatory is admissible if it is relevant and can assist the jury in understanding the facts. A gruesome or potentially inflammatory photograph is admissible if it is of such essential evidentiary value that its need clearly outweighs the likelihood of inflaming the minds and passions of the jurors. Commonwealth v. Garcia, 505 Pa. 304, 313, 479 A.2d 473, 478 (1984).

During the Motions hearing held on July 8, 2008 the Court viewed all photographs objected to by Defense Counsel. Using the aforementioned standard, the Court ruled on the admissibility of each of the photographs in question. (N.T. July 8, 2008 at pages 11-43).

IV. MOTION IN LIMINE — USE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR CRIMINAL RECORD

The Commonwealth stipulated that both Defendant Kerekes and Defendant Cuadra have no prior criminal records and therefore no such evidence will be introduced at trial. (NT. July 8, 2008 at pages 43-44).

V. MOTION IN LIMINE — PROHIBIT USE OF DEFENDANT’S PRIOR BAD ACTS

In their Omnibus Pretrial Motions each Defendant moves to prohibit use of the Defendants’ prior bad acts.

Additionally, the Commonwealth, in its Notice of Commonwealth’s Intention to Seek to Admit Evidence of Other Crimes, Wrongs, or Acts Pursuant to Pa. Rule of Evidence 404(b), filed on November 6, 2007, gives Notice of intention to seek admission of certain conduct it alleges constitutes a prior bad act. In its supporting brief and during oral argument held on July 30, 2008 (See N.T. pages 3-28) the Commonwealth specifically referred to this request to seek to introduce evidence of the following conduct:

A. DEFENDANT’S ESCORT BUSINESS AND ALLEGED PROSTITUTION.

The Commonwealth alleges Defendants operated a male escort business and that each Defendant solicited certain clients of that business to fabricate a false alibi, in order to support their claim that they were not present in Dallas Township when the homicide occurred. More specifically, the Commonwealth alleges that Defendant Cuadra solicited Mitch Halford, an alleged long-standing escort client of Mr. Cuadra’s, to indicate that he was with the Defendant on January 24, 2007, the evening of the murder.

The Commonwealth alleges that Defendant Cuadra sent Nep Maliki a letter instructing him to tell authorities that he went to Cuadra’s residence at 1028 Stratem Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia for an escort call on the evening of January 24,2007. The Commonwealth further alleges that Cuadra instructed Maliki to detail their conduct that evening which conduct, if true, could constitute prostitution. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 5-9).

The Commonwealth further alleges that Defendant Kerekes solicited Mr. Brannon to tell authorities that Kerekes provided him with escort services at the Fox Ridge Inn, Plains Township, Pennsylvania on the evening of January 24, 2007. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 9-11).

Finally, the Commonwealth alleges that both Defendants contacted David Michaels, again soliciting a fake alibi involving an escort call. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 11-12).

It is certainly clear that evidence that a Defendant has solicited false alibi testimony is admissible as substantive evidence of consciousness of guilt. See Commonwealth v.. Young, 748 A.2d 166 (Pa. 1999); Commonwealth v. Johnson, 668 A.2d 97(Pa. 1995); Commonwealth v. Carbone, 547 A.2d 584, 589 (Pa. 1990).

At the same time, however, it is equally clear that while Pennsylvania Rule of Evidence 404(b)(2) allows evidence of other crimes, wrongs or acts to be admitted to prove motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity or absence of mistake or accident, 404(b)(3) limits the admission of such evidence to where its probative value outweighs the potential for prejudice.

Under these circumstances, while the Court will allow the Commonwealth to present evidence of Defendants’ alleged solicitation to seek false alibis, the Commonwealth will not be permitted to present evidence of an escort service or of alleged prostitution.

B. FALSE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST ROBERT WAGNER, GRANT ROY AND SEAN LOCKHART.

The Commonwealth broadly suggests that during certain of the intercepted conversations at Crab Catcher’s Restaurant and on Black Beach, as well as in certain Virginia Beach prison intercepts, that the Defendants discussed attempts to accuse Robert Wagner, Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart of involvement in the murder of Bryan Kocis.

During oral argument held on July 30, 2008 the Commonwealth withdrew its request to present such evidence during its case-in-chief, and instead will consider using it as potential rebuttal evidence. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 18-21).

Under these circumstances the Court obviously need not make any ruling on this issue.

C. DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITATION TO MAKE UNDER THE TABLE PAYMENTS TO RECRUIT BRENT CORRIGAN TO THEIR STABLE OF ACTORS.

Here the Commonwealth requests to introduce evidence that (1) Defendants attempted to circumvent a settlement agreement between L.S.G. and Cobra Video wherein L.S.G. was required to make payment to Cobra Video for its use of Sean Lockhart in its videos; (2) to lure Sean Lockhart away from making videos for Cobra Video and into videos for L.S.G. The Commonwealth argues that while such conduct is not criminal in nature, it qualifies as a bad act in that it advances the Commonwealth’s theory of their case that the motive behind the murder of Bryan Kocis was to recruit Sean Lockhart for L.S.G. and away from Cobra Video. The Commonwealth would produce evidence that Defendants solicited and would secretly pay Sean Lockhart and Grant Roy to make secret videos for L.S.G. without making the required payments of twenty percent of revenue from these videos to Cobra Video. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 21-28).

Ultimately the Commonwealth argues that by murdering Bryan Kocis, the Defendants would not be required to make the payments to Cobra Video, and would not need to resort to luring Roy and Lockhart to make secret videos.

Should the Commonwealth be able to develop such evidence, the Court believes that it would promote a possible motive for the murder and that its probative value would outweigh prejudice to the Defendants. With proper offers of proof the Court will allow such testimony.

D. VIRGINIA FORFEITURE PROCEEDINGS.

The Commonwealth declined to develop the nature and theory of such testimony and instead indicated that such evidence may only become relevant as rebuttal evidence in a potential penalty phase of the trial. (See N.T. July 30, 2008 at pages 28-29).

E. BURGLARY CHARGES.

The Commonwealth originally sought to introduce testimony that the Defendants were also charged with burglary on the basis of an alleged illegal entry into the Kocis home. During oral argument, this request was modified to eliminate any mention of burglary charges, and to simply submit evidence as to how entry was made to the Kocis home. (See NT. July 30, 2008 at pages 29-31).

VI. MOTION TO SUPPRESS ORAL AND/OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS

Defendant Kerekes challenges the admissibility of the following statements:

A. Defendant’s electronically recorded oral statements and conversations at Crab Catcher’s Restaurant in La Hoya, California on April 27, 2007;

B. Defendant’s electronically recorded oral statements and conversations at Black Beach, San Diego, California on April 28, 2007;

C. Defendant’s oral statements to Corporal Leo Hannon of the Pennsylvania State Police and to Special Agent James Glenn of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on May 15, 2007 in Virginia Beach, Virginia Police Department.

The Court adopts the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law with regard to these statements:

I. FINDINGS OF FACT

A. DEFENDANT’S ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED STATEMENTS AND CONVERSATION AT CRAB CATCHER’S RESTAURANT IN LA HOYA, CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 27, 2007.

1. Corporal Leo Hannon, a twelve and one-half year veteran of the Pennsylvania State Police, is the lead investigator into the homicide of Bryan Charles Kocis. Corporal Hannon is currently assigned to the Bureau of Criminal Investigation in Harrisburg, and has a total of eighteen years experience in law enforcement. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 9).

2. As part of this investigation, beginning February 10, 2007, Corporal Hannon made contact with Grant Roy of San Diego, California and conducted a number of interviews with Mr. Roy and his legal Counsel. Mr. Roy has been and continues to be a cooperating witness in the Kocis homicide investigation. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 204; 209).

3. Grant Roy knew the victim, Bryan Kocis, from their involvement in the gay pornographic industry. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 206).

4. Grant Roy and Bryan Kocis were not friends. Roy did not care for Kocis and has described him as a “demon” and “pervert”. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 212; 218-219).

5. Prior to his death, Bryan Kocis operated Cobra Video which produced gay pornographic videos. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 217).

6. Sean Lockhart a/k/a Brent Corrigan, previously worked as an “actor’ for Cobra Video and Bryan Kocis. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 217).

7. At some point Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart became both business partners and “friends”. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 216-217).

8. Sometime during “2005-2006” Cobra Video sued LSG Media, Inc. concerning the use of Sean Lockhart as an actor in gay pornographic videos. LSG Media, Inc. filed counterclaims against Cobra. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 206-208).

9. Following depositions and mediation, on or about January 18, 2007 a settlement was reached in the aforesaid civil litigation whereby Cobra Video was granted the use of Lockhart in certain “scenes” and further over the next four years LSG Media, Inc. would pay Cobra Video twenty (20%) percent of its revenue from videos using Lockhart. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 206; 212).

10. On or about April 27, 2007 Corporal Hannon and various other Pennsylvania Law Enforcement officials traveled to San Diego, California to personally interview witnesses and to further the Kocis investigation. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 171).

11. While in San Diego, Corporal Han non worked closely with Detective Robert Donaldson of the San Diego Police Department. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 171-172).

12. Corporal Hannon advised Detective Donaldson that Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra had been identified as suspects in the Kocis killing. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 172).

13. During continued interviews between law enforcement officials and Grant Roy and his Counsel, Roy agreed to act as an informant and to wear a body wire or transmitter to intercept conversations with Kerekes and Cuadra. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 197-198; 220).

14. The San Diego Police Department planned, supervised, and conducted the actual interception of conversations between Roy, Lockhart, Kerekes and Cuadra. Detective Donaldson acted as the Supervising Detective for the intercepts and Detective Andrew Pappas, also of the San Diego Police Department, acted as the Technical Officer and arranged for the fitting, operation, transmission and recording of the intercepted conversations. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 191-192).

15. Detective Daniel Yursha of the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office assisted the San Diego Police in surveillance of the two interceptions. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 191).

16. The first electronic interception took place on April 27, 2007 at Crab Catcher’s Restaurant in La Hoya, California. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 200).

17. Grant Roy orally agreed and consented to acting as an informant and participating in the interception on April 27, 2007. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 196-197). This consent was expressed to San Diego Detective Donaldson.

18. Roy consented to wearing a body wire. He never withdrew his consent. He was under no pressure from any law enforcement agency regarding consent. Law enforcement officials made no promises or threats. Roy received no compensation for acting as an informant and had no charges pending against him at the time. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 187-198).

19. San Diego Detectives never requested written consent from Mr. Roy. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 219-220).

20. Roy never met with any District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General prior to participating in the intercept. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 219).

21. After Detective Pappas fitted Roy with the body wire, Roy and Lockhart picked up Defendants Kerekes and Cuadra at a local hotel and drove to the Crab Catcher’s Restaurant for lunch. Lockhart was aware that Roy was ‘wired” and agreed to be present during the interception. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 198-199).

22. Roy’s body wire transmitted the conversations between Roy, Lockhart, Kerekes and Cuadra while they dined at Crab Catcher’s Restaurant. Those conversations were simultaneously intercepted and recorded by San Diego Police. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 173-174).

23. At the conclusion of the luncheon, Roy made arrangements to meet Defendants Kerekes and Cuadra at the hotel the following day and go to Black Beach. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 200-201).

24. Corporal Hannon and the other Pennsylvania law enforcement officials who were present in San Diego at the time of the intercept played a de minimis, inconsequential role in the intercept of the Crab Catcher’s conversation. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 191-192).

B. DEFENDANT’S ELECTRONICALLY RECORDED STATEMENTS AND CONVERSATION AT BLACK BEACH, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA ON APRIL 28, 2007.

25. On April 28, 2007 Grant Roy met with San Diego Detectives Donaldson and Pappas prior to meeting Kerekes and Cuadra. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 201).

26. Grant Roy orally agreed and consented to acting as an informant and participating in the interception on April 27, 2007. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 180-181; 201). The consent was expressed to San Diego Detective Donaldson.

27. Roy consented to wearing a body wire. He never withdrew consent. He was under no pressure from any law enforcement agency to agree to consent. Law enforcement officials made no promises cr threats. Roy received no compensation for acting as an informant and had no charges pending against him at the time. (NT. July 28, 2008 at pages 180-181; 201-202).

28. The San Diego Police Department planned, supervised, and conducted the actual interception of conversations between Roy, Lockhart, Kerekes and Cuadra. Detective Donaldson acted as the Supervising Detective for the intercepts and Detective Andrew Pappas, also of the San Diego Police Department acted as the Technical Officer and arranged for the fitting, operation, transmission and recording of the intercepted conversations. (N.T, July 28, 2008 at pages 188; 191).

29. On April 28, 2007, San Diego Detectives never requested written consent from Mr. Roy. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 184-185).

30. On April 28, 2007, Roy never met with any District Attorney, Assistant District Attorney, Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General prior to participating in the intercept. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 184).

31. Detective Pappas provided Roy with an electronic key remote which acted as a transmitter for the interception of conversations with Kerekes and Cuadra at Black Beach. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 187).

32. Black Beach is a public nude beach located at the base of Torrey Pines Golf Course in San Diego, California. Because Roy anticipated being nude, wearing a body wire was obviously impossible, and thus Detective Pappas fit him with the key remote which would serve as the transmitter. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 179-180; 187).

33. On April 28, 2007, Roy and Lockhart then went to Defendants’ motel and transported Kerekes and Cuadra to Black Beach where Roy’s key remote electronically transmitted the conversations and statements made by Kerekes and Cuadra. Those conversations were simultaneously intercepted and recorded by San Diego Police. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 186-187).

34. Corporal Harmon and the other Pennsylvania law enforcement officials were who present in San Diego at the time of the intercept played a de minimis, inconsequential role in the intercept of the Black Beach conversations. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 178; 191-192).

C. DEFENDANT’S ORAL STATEMENTS GIVEN TO CORPORAL HANNON AND SPECIAL AGENT GLENN ON MAY 15, 2007 IN THE VIRGINIA BEACH, VIRGINIA POLICE DEPARTMENT.

35. On May 15, 2007 Corporal Hannon filed a Criminal Complaint in the Office of Magisterial District Judge James Tupper charging Defendant Kerekes and Defendant Cuadra with one count of Criminal Homicide (18 Pa. C.S.A. §2501(A), as well as a plethora of additional charges in connection with the death of Bryan Charles Kocis (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 9-10).

36. Immediately after obtaining Defendant’s Arrest Warrant Corporal Hannon contacted the Virginia Beach, Virginia Police Department, advised them of the warrant, and requested Virginia Beach Police to arrest the Defendant as a Fugitive From Justice. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 10-11).

37. Defendant Kerekes was taken into custody at his home by Virginia Beach Police Department at approximately 10:00 a.m. on May 15, 2007 and held at the Virginia Beach Police Department.

38. Corporal Hannon and a contingent of Pennsylvania law enforcement officials from the Pennsylvania State Police, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Dallas Township Police Department and Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office Detective Division traveled to the Virginia Beach Police Department to “advise Defendants of the charges” and to obtain certain “biographical data” from them. (NT. July 28, 2008 at pages 11-12).

39. Corporal Hannon and Special Agent Glenn were assigned to meet with Defendant Kerekes; Detective Lieutenant Yursha from the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office and Officer Douglas Higgins of the Dallas Township Police Department were assigned to meet with Defendant Cuadra. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 13).

40. Corporal Hannon and Special Agent Glenn initially entered and met Defendant Kerekes in a standard interview room in the Virginia Beach Police Department at approximately 8:00 p.m. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 13-14).

41. This room had a table, chairs and an adjoining restroom. At no time was a Virginia Beach Police Officer present nor did a Virginia Beach Police Officer in any way participate in this encounter. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 13-14).

42. While obviously in custody, Defendant Kerekes was neither handcuffed nor shackled. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 14-15).

43. Neither Corporal Hannon nor Agent Glenn possessed any weapons. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 43).

44. Corporal Hannon asked the Defendant if he had previously been “Mirandized’ by Virginia Beach Police and the Defendant stated he had, and that he told Virginia Beach Police that he wanted to speak with a lawyer. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 15).

45. At no time did Corporal Hannon and/or Agent Glenn advise the Defendant of his Miranda Warnings.

46. Defendant Kerekes again invoked his right to counsel and advised Corporal Hannon he wished to speak to a lawyer. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 15).

47. Corporal Hannon told the Defendant that other than requesting biographical information that he would not be questioned. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 14).

48. Defendant was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol; he was alert and coherent. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 14-15).

49. Corporal Hannon advised the Defendant that he could use the adjoining restroom and have food or a drink if he wished. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 15-16).

50. Corporal Hannon further told the Defendant he was going to ask for certain “biographical information” which included the Defendant’s name, date of birth, social security number, address, height, weight, eye color, family history, employment information, military experience, general educational information and personal relationships. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 16; 35-36).

51. At no time did Corporal Hannon permit the Defendant to consult with counsel prior questioning regarding the aforementioned information. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 65).

52. The Pennsylvania State Police, as an entity, do not mandate that an arresting officer gather certain specific biographic information from defendants at the time of arrest. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 52).

53. Defendant cooperated and provided Corporal Hannon with the requested information. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 16).

54. Corporal Hannon then read Defendant the criminal charges that had been filed against him. (NT. July 28, 2008 at page 17).

55. Despite previously telling Defendant he would not ask the Defendant any questions, Corporal Hannon asked the Defendant if he understood the charges. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 17).

56. Defendant Kerekes responded by essentially saying that while he understood the words, he did not understand why he had been charged. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 17).

57. Corporal Hannon then proceeded to advise the Defendant of the probable cause in support of the charges. He did this, in part, by reading portions of the affidavit of probable cause, and, in part, by summarizing the affidavit. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 17-19).

58. As Corporal Hannon did this, on at least nine separate occasions, the Defendant “interrupted” Corporal Hannon and made a variety of statements. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 19-30).

59. Agent Glenn recorded each statement in his notebook. (N.T. July28, 2008 at page 72).

60. The statements made by the Defendant are incriminatory. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 54).

61. As Corporal Hannon neared the end of reading the affidavit to Defendant Kerekes, Kerekes began crying and swore on his mother’s grave” that he wasn’t the one who killed Kocis. The following exchange then took place:

Kerekes: What do you want?

Hannon: I want the truth.

Kerekes: I want to tell you the truth.

Corporal Hannon then stopped Defendant and told him to consult with his attorney. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 24-25).

62. The Affidavit of Probable Cause used by Corporal Hannon consists of twenty-three pages. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 30).

63. Defendant was allowed to use the restroom and was given a Snicker’s bar and a pink lemonade during the encounter. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 25).

64. The encounter lasted approximately two hours. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 30).

65. Special Agent Glenn did not say anything to the Defendant; nor did he ask Defendant any questions. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 72).

66. It is not the standard operating procedure of the Pennsylvania State Police, the F.B.I. or the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office to read the criminal complaint or the affidavit of probable cause to a homicide Defendant who has requested to consult with an attorney. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 49; 66; 75-76).

67. There are no written policies, procedures or mandates from the Pennsylvania State Police, F.B.I. or the Luzerne County District Attorney’s Office requiring arresting officers to read a homicide Defendant the contents of the Criminal complaint or affidavit of probable cause after the Defendant has invoked his right to counsel. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at pages 49; 66; 75-76).

68. Corporal Hannon testified it was his “personal policy” to read the criminal complaint and affidavit of probable cause to homicide Defendants, and that he has done so in five of approximately fifteen homicide arrests made in his career. (N.T. July 28, 2008 at page 50).

Homicide Investigation Action Report: Victim Checklist

LAST KNOWN LOCATION SEEN: Victim was last confirmed to be seen on 01/24/07 at approx 1405 hrs as he picked up a “to go” order at “Really Cookin” café, Dallas, Pa.. Victim was seen by one George F. CREEL, proprietor of same. Additionally, victim was engaged in telephone conversations with several individuals in the early evening hours on 01/24/07.

VICTIM’S ACTIVITIES FOR PREVIOUS SEVENTY-TWO HOURS: Refer to specific reports contained herein.

WILL/OTHER FINANCiAL INFORMATION: Victim did have a will, in which he bequeathed his possessions to his sister and other family members. The victim did hold checking/savings accounts at registered and licensed financial institutions. Although the victim had filed for bankruptcy in 2001, he appeared to be current with financial obligations at the time of his death.

FRIENDS: The victim was known to be friends and associated with one Robert WAGNER, New York, NY., and Lauren KAYE, Harvey’s Lake, Pa..

KNOWN ENEMIES: At the time of his death, the victim had just settled a bitter contract dispute with a former paramour and actor/model, one Sean LOCKHART. LOCKHART’s current paramour and businës is one Grant Andrew ROY.

VEHICLES OWNED/ROUTINE ACCESS TO: Victim owned and had regular acces to a BMW sport utility vehicle Pa Reg: XXXXXXX, a Maseratti coupe, Pa Reg: XXXXX, and an Astin Martin coupe, Pa Reg: XXXXXXX.

HABITS/TRAVEL/SOCIAL PERSONALITY/EATING: Victim traveled rather extensively to exotic locales pursuant to business, utilizing commercial air travel. Victim purveyed a generally social personality, and ate at several establishments on a regular basis including aforementioned “Really Cooking” café, “Damien’s On the Lake”, and “Pic-A-Deli”, Plains Twp., Pa..

VICTIM’S RESIDENCE EXAMINED: Victim’s residence was extensively searched over the course of several days as shall be thoroughly described herein.

---

Note from PC: This report was written by Cpl. Leo Hannon, but this is the only page that was submitted as an exhibit in a defendants joint reply brief to Commonwealth's brief in opposition to motion to suppress April 2007 intercepts at Crab Catcher and Black's Beach. I'll be posting this brief in the next day or two.

He Said... She Said... What to Believe?

I think it's fair to say that at this point, we'll all have to wait until the trial to find out if/and/or what role Sean, Grant, and Robert played in this crime (again if any).

One thing I'd like to point out is that there's no 'official' mention of Sean and Grant asking Harlow and Joe to murder Brian, just as there is no 'official' mention of Robert Wagner being in the house at the time of the murder.

There's no reference to the three being a part of the murder in the BBT's, in Joe's jailhouse confessions, or in Joe's jailhouse interview. (I left out the Las Vegas dinner since we've only heard one side of that story).

So far the only thing I've heard come directly out of Joe or Harlow's mouth is "ask Sean and Grant", and one of them mentioning Robert Wagner. All of which occured during the preliminary hearing, well after their arrest.

Just about every other claim that's been made since, has come from someone other than Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes... and I think it's pretty obvious that some may have an agenda... whether good or bad.

So just because he said... or she said... doesn't make it true. I'll stick with what's been submitted as evidence, and what transpires during the trial.

... and that's what I say. :)

Witness Testimony At The Preliminary Hearing (Day 1)

Though the Preliminary Hearing happened several months ago, we never really got a good look as to what was said during testimony. The newspapers only offered snippets, and Harlow's blog obmitted some information.

Since these same witnesses will be testifying at the trial(s) (when ever that happens), I thought it would be good to post a summary of what was said and add a permalink to it on the right-hand side under "Useful Trial Resources". You'll certainly notice lots of previously known information, but I think you'll easily find some 'new' stuff too.

The following witnesses testified as to the aforementioned offense at the preliminary hearing against Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes: Luzerne County Deputy Coroner William Lisman, Luzerne County Coroner Dr. John Consalvo, Justin Hensley, Thakor Patel, James Gilbert, Amy Zamerowski, Dallas Township Fire Department Chief Harry Vivian, Pennsylvania State Police Fire Marshall Ronald Jarocha, Thomas Baker, Michael Kocis, Robert Wagner, Grant Roy, Pennsylvania State Trooper Brian Murphy, and Cpl. Leo Hannon. A summary of the witness' testimony taken from the transcripts follows:

Deputy Coroner William Lisman testified that he recieved a telephone call from the 911 Communication Center on the evening in question to respond to Midland Drive in Dallas, PA. He further testified that he was asked to examine a body that was badly burned and which was later identified as the deceased Bryan Kocis. Mr. Lisman further described a frothy, bubbly are of fluid common to fire victims due to super heating of the fluid in the body, however, in Mr. Kocis' case, the frothy, bubbly fluid was occuring around his neck. Mr. Lisman also testified that upon a closer view of the deceased, he viewed what he believed to be stab wounds on the victim's chest and a laceration to the victim's neck.

Mr. Lisman further testified that the body was badly burned and it was not readily identifiable. He stated that at the autopsy on January 25, 2007, the body was identified through the use of dental records obtained by Kocis' family members.

Dr. John Consalvo testified that he attended the autopsy of the victim which was performed by Dr. Mary Pascucci. He stated that "the cause of death was a new decapitating wound to the neck. And the manner of death was homicide." Dr. Cansalvo also described the condition of the victim's body. He described second degree burns on the victim's back, as well as, third degree burning on his legs; his hands and arm were burned and his fingertips were completely burned. Fragments of cloth were burned to his skin. He further indicated that the victim's genitals were charred and there was a stab wound to the left side of the groin area.

Dr. Consalvo also testified that the victim's windpipe was completely severed as was his esophagus. Furthermore, the victim's carotid artery, one of the main arteries from the heart to the brain, was severed. This was determined to be the probably cause of death. There was also testimony as to 28-29 postmortem stab wounds to the victim. It was also determined that at the time the fire started the victim was not alive. Eighty percent of the body had third degree burns rendering the autopsy more difficult to complete.

At the preliminary hearing, Justin Hensley testified to his personal knowledge of the Defendent's business endeavors, namely their escort service and pornographic video production and website. Hensley also testified that both Defendents made statements in his presence that Cobra Video, which was owned and operated by the victim Bryan Kocis, "was one of the big competitions because of its success through the Internet, especially for the gay pornographic world... yes, it was a big rival, you know. It was, in their way, of becoming bigger." Furthermore, Hensley testified that he had heard about Sean Lockhart a.k.a. Brent Corrigan, from the Defendents in January of 2007. He stated that "[the Defendents] wanted [Sean Lockhart] to work for them because that would definitely help boost profit for the company if they had a star like that working for them." "They wanted to try and recruit him to their side, to the Boybatter name so it could help, you know, with the business", and in terms of money, they were looking to make "as much as possible". However, "Mr. Lockhart... had a contract through Cobra, so the only thing standing in their way was Mr. Kocis", because "nobody would, in that kind of industry with that money and everything, especially if he was under contract. They just wouldn't let him go like that to work with somebody else."

Justin Hensley also testified to the Defendants' extravagant tastes in, among other things, watches. More specifically, Hensley stated that "they had a nice collection of really high end watches as in Rolex, Omega." The relavance of this is that Bryan Kocis' Rolex watch, which further testimony will show he rarely took off his wrist, was reportedly missing after the murder. Finally, Hensley testified that the Defendants were acting differently after the death of Kocis and it seemed like Harlow Cuadra was acting "kind of like sketchy, like he was trying to push away from answering questions" regarding the Defendants' involvement in the homicide.

Thakor Patel testified that he is the owner/manager of the Fox Ridge Inn in Plains Township. He stated that on January 23, 2007, Joe Kerekes checked-in for two nights and the room was registered for two people. Kerekes was required to show photo identification at the time of check-in and registered that the vehicle he arrived in was gray in color. Kerekes, on the check-in slip, noted that he was from Virginia and originally started to provide an address of "1028 Str" before crossing it out and giving a different address. Finally, Mr. Patel noted that the hotel does not have Internet access and that if someone wanted to access the Internet, they would have to use their own wireless Internet. Mr. Patel documented Mr. Kerekes' VA Drivers License NO. XXXXXXXXX. Later, Cpl. Hannon noted this was in fact Kerekes' Virginia Drivers License.

Next, James Gilbert testified that he resides on Midland Drive in Dallas and was a neighbor of Bryan Kocis. He stated that he walked his dog on Midland Drive, including past the Kocis home, between approximately 7:35 to 7:50 p.m. on January 24, 2007. He further stated that at the time, he noticed a silver SUV in Kocis' driveway up towards the garage. He found this somewhat peculiar because vehicles didn't usually park in the driveway of the Kocis home; they typically parked in a spot in front of the home. Gilbert was shown Exhibit No. 12, which was a photo of a silver Nissan XTerra that Defendant Harlow Cuadra rented. The witness positively identified Exhibit No. 12 as the make and type of vehicle that he had seen on the evening of Wednesday, January 24, 2007 in the Kocis driveway. Gilbert recalled seeing flames coming from the Kocis residence at approximately 8:15-8:30 p.m. that evening.

Next, Amy Zamerowski testified that on the evening of January 24, 2007, she was going to pick up her friend Amy Withers at 64 Midland Drive, Dallas, right next door to the Kocis residence. She recalls that she turned onto Midland Drive at precisely 8:26 p.m. When she pulled into the Withers' driveway, there was a light colored SUV backing out of the Kocis driveway. Ms. Zamerowski was shown exhibits 13 through 25 which were photos taken by the Pennsylvania State Police of a silver Nissan XTerra. She testified that she was previously shown these photos and informed the State Police that the Nissan XTerra could have been the vehicle she had seen backing out of the Kocis driveway on the evening in question. Finally, Ms. Zamerowski testified that after seeing the vehicle leaving the Kocis driveway, she entered the Withers residence. A few moments later, someone knocked on the door warning them to get out of the house because there was a fire next door at the Kocis residence.

Next, Dallas Twp. Fire Chief Harry Vivian testified that a fire alarm came into the department for the Kocis home at 8:35 p.m. on January 24, 2007. It took the fire department approximately 20 minutes to one half hour to supress the fire and there was heavy fire damage to the front porch and the front of the house, namely the living room. It was the living room that the body of Bryan Kocis was found. Furthermore, Chief Vivian testified that when he went to the house with the State Police Fire Marshall, they found two smoke detectors which were removed from their mounts. The first floor smoke detector was placed on a table near the wall and the upstairs smoke detector was lying on the bathroom floor off the main hallway.

Trooper Ron Jarocha, Pennsylvania State Police Deputy Fire Marshall, then took the stand. He testified that, based on his knowledge, training and experience, it was his opinion that the fire was arson. He believed that "an open flame was used to ignite combustible materials which were placed behind the love seat." He opined that in the area of the love seat, "you could see a burn pattern on the floor, and the charring on the back of the [love seat]... If the fire started elsewhere in the room, this would be a protected area, and no reason for the fire to have burned underneath that area." He also noted that while removing items from the area of the love seat, the State Police "found remnants of cushioning... the foam which is inside the seats. [They] also found remnants of like a throw pillow. A small pillow that had like tassels on it. That was attached to the back of the house somewhere [near the love seat]. We also found signs of paper products, like cardboard paper. There were numerous, numerous combustible items being in the [love seat area]." He further testified in regards to the origin of fire that he "found no causes for this fire to occur between the coach - directly behind the love seat. There was nothing there to accidentally cause this fire." He also testified to finding the smoke detectors removed and placed in other locations.

Michael Kocis was the victim's father and the executor of the victim's estate. Prior to the start of his testimony, the defense attorneys stipulated that, with regards to the abuse of the corpse charge, "they would agree that Mr. Kocis would testify that the condition of this altered or destroyed corpse of his son would outrage the ordinary family sensibilities." They did, however, reserve their right to argue that it was not they who abused the corpse. He testified that his son was a quiet, private person who kept to himself. It was the normal practice for the family to call ahead before visiting the victim; they did not come to the victim's house unannounced. He also testified that there were several items of personal property that were missing from Bryan Kocis' home from the incident of January 24, 2007, namely two high-end expensive camcorders, computer towers, a Rolex watch which the younger Kocis never took off, as well as, business records such as 2257 forms. There items were reported missing to Thomas Baker, Nationwide Insurance Claim Representative who testified that the replacement value of the fire destroyed home was $208,254.00 and the total personal property loss due to the fire, as well as, items reported missing was $216,000.00.

The final witness to testify on day 1 of the preliminary hearing for the Defense was Robert Wagner, who was one of the victim's best friends. Robert Wagner described several of the items the victim used for his business including laptop computers, computer towers, and 2257 forms that were necessary in the pornography business and the locations where they were kept. Mr. Wagner also described two camcorders owned by the victim which he positively identified in a photo marked as exhibit 45. These are items that Michael Kocis had previously identified as being missing from his son's home after the incident and were included in the insurance claim submitted to Nationwide Insurance. Wagner also described Bryan Kocis' Rolex watch that he wore all the time, as well as, a flat sceen TV that the victim had just purchased at Christmastime. The Rolex watch was missing after January 24, 2007 and the TV was destroyed in the fire. Robert Wagner testified that he had seen all of these items in the victim's residence as recently as Sunday January 21, 2007.

Robert Wagner also testified that Bryan Kocis was "an intensively private person" and he did not have an open-door policy to visitors; advanced notice was required.

Finally, Robert Wagner testified that Bryan Kocis planned on meeting a new model on Wednesday January 24, 2007 between 7 and 8 p.m. Kocis informed Wagner of this via email and attached photos of the new model. The photos were attached to a file named "Danny" and Wagner testified that he recognized the photos when shown to him again. He recognized the person in the photos emailed to him by the victim as Harlow Cuadra and made an in-court identification of the Defendant. The victim was planning to meet Cuadra on the evening of his death under the aggregious assumption that was "Danny" a prospective new model.