Some New Dates...

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

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

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

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

A Taxing Day Indeed...

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

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

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

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

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

Olszewski Schedules Next Hearing

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski has scheduled a hearing for 04/15/08. I'm going to assume that it's likely another status conference for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes... but I'll update this post (if needed) as soon as I'm able to gather some more information.

Update @ 4:26 pm: The April 15th status conference hearing is on motions for: handwriting exemplars, psych evals, habeas corpus, and the Justin Hensley testimony... sounds like it'll be a taxing day.

Kerekes says he only Discussed Legal Fees with Fannick

The Times Leader is reporting that homicide suspect Joseph Kerekes only spoke with attorney Demetrius Fannick about legal fees.

That’s it, Kerekes said Thursday.

He never discussed a defense strategy.

He never discussed his whereabouts on the day Bryan Kocis was killed.

He never discussed the merits of his case.

He never discussed cooperating with prosecutors.

And he never accepted any legal advice or opinions from Fannick.

“Absolutely not,” Kerekes testified Thursday.

The testimony came in the second day of a hearing to determine whether Fannick should be disqualified from representing Kerekes’ co-defendant, Harlow Cuadra.

Cuadra and Kerekes are awaiting trial in the January 2007 slaying of Kocis, 44, inside his Dallas Township home. Luzerne County prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for both suspects.

But first they are seeking to have Fannick removed from the case because he had met with Kerekes before being hired on behalf of Cuadra.

Prosecutors believe Kerekes and Fannick discussed more than just legal fees in the more-than-five hours they met in eight meetings in prison. And that, they said, creates a conflict with Fannick now defending Cuadra.

But Kerekes and Fannick have both said there is no conflict because they only discussed fees.

And Kerekes Thursday morning maintained that stance on the witness stand, being questioned by one of his attorneys, John Pike, prosecutor Mike Melnick, and Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr.

Kerekes said each of his eight meetings with Fannick lasted just five or 10 minutes. Eight meetings, he said, was not a lot when discussing more than $100,000 in fees, he said.

But that’s all the meetings were about.

Melnick challenged Kerekes, though. The prosecutor wanted to know: If Kerekes and Fannick only discussed fees, why did he tell Fannick, prior to a past court hearing, that he didn’t want the attorney to use anything the two spoke about in their meetings?

Kerekes said he was “emotional” that day. He meant he didn’t want Fannick using any “inferences” he might have drawn from the meetings.

“It was an emotional reaction,” he said. “I was a little emotional that morning.”

Kerekes was the only witness to testify Thursday.

Olszewski now needs to conduct a hearing to determine whether Kerekes and Cuadra can legally waive any conflict that might exist before he can rule on the Fannick issue.

That hearing is set for March 14.
----

Update @ 4:25 PM: The Commonwealth Attorney's office has filed two additional supplemental briefs regarding Attorney Fannick's disqualification. (I'll try to have more on this later).

Update @ March 7 9:00 AM: The Citizen's Voice also covers yesterday's hearing, and adds the following: “Eight times isn’t a lot of times to discuss $100,000,” a handcuffed Kerekes testified. After his last meeting with Fannick, Kerekes said he made it clear that neither he nor his family could afford to pay for Fannick’s services.

Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick contended during a closing argument that an implied agreement occurred and threatens the trial overall.

“The appearance of fairness … is paramount,” said Melnick, who lead a team of four prosecutors in the case. “To condone this conflict of interest is just wrong.”

Melnick said that by allowing Fannick to remain as Cuadra’s attorney, Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. would be giving the defendants a possible grounds for appeal if found guilty.

Today's Status Conference

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski has made the following rulings so far, in today's status conference for the murder trial(s) of Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes.

1. Attorney for Defendant shall pick up Discovery at DA's Office personally.
2. Commonwealth's Motion to Strike Joseph Kerekes' Omnibus Pretrial Motion has been denied.

Update @ 2:24 PM: A court watcher has informed me that the hearing is still on-going... I'll be able to provide more information as soon as it's over.

Update @ 5:40 PM: The hearing wrapped up at 4:30 p.m. for today. It lasted more than 7 hours. It will resume at 9:30 a.m. tomorrow.

Update @ 5:40 PM: There has been no decision made on Atty. Demetrius Fannick representing Harlow Cuadra.

Update @ 6:00 PM: The Times Leader is reporting that even if homicide suspect Joseph Kerekes says there is no conflict with attorney Demetrius Fannick representing a co-defendant, Kerekes should be ignored, an expert said.

Robert Davis, a legal ethics expert, said the events that have unfolded in the case, including a recent courtroom outburst by Kerekes, leads him to believe that the “fairness” and “integrity” of the proceedings could be impacted if Fannick remains on board.

“There should be a disqualification,” Davis said.

But his opinion, and the information he used to form it, was later vigorously challenged by other attorneys.

Davis was one of six witnesses assistant district attorneys Mike Melnick, Tim Doherty, and Shannon Crake called to testify Wednesday at a hearing on their attempt to have Fannick disqualified from defending Harlow Cuadra.

Cuadra and Kerekes are awaiting trial in the January 2007 slaying of Bryan Kocis inside his Dallas Township home. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for both suspects.

Prosecutors say Fannick should be removed from the case because he had previously met with Kerekes. But Fannick and Kerekes’ attorneys say there is no conflict because Fannick and Kerekes did not discuss anything confidential or material to the case.

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. called a hearing on the issue Wednesday. The hearing lasted more than seven hours and will resume at 9:30 a.m. Thursday. Fannick might testify.

Update @ 6:04 PM: "The whole hearing was pretty much about the Fannick issue." The two other issues mentioned above were quickly resolved... according to a court watcher.

Update @ March 6 5:42 AM: The Times Leader added a little more to their story overnight: Prosecutors say a conflict is evident because of the eight meetings Fannick had with Kerekes before being hired on behalf of Cuadra. And it’s evident Kerekes discussed some confidential material with Fannick because of Kerekes’ courtroom outburst Feb. 20, Davis said.

The outburst occurred outside the presence of the judge and prosecutors. But court clerk Lindsay McFarland and Deputy Sheriff Eugene Gurnari rehashed the incident for Olszewski.

McFarland said Kerekes told Fannick he would have Fannick removed from the case if the attorney used anything they spoke about during their meetings. Kerekes seemed angry, Gurnari said.

That outburst was one of the issues Davis used in forming his opinion. It showed Fannick has “detrimental information” about Kerekes, he said.

But if Kerekes waives any Fannick conflict, like he has indicated he will, a judge could still disregard it, Davis said. Olszewski, in this case, should do that, Davis said. But Olszewski said he still needs to consider Cuadra’s right to counsel.

Update @ March 6 5:57 AM: Meanwhile, the Citizen's Voice also carries the story with much of the same information, but with a few more details: Kerekes was to pay Fannick $50,000 to defend him, $25,000 up front, said Robert Wallace, Kerekes’ former cellmate at Luzerne County Correctional Facility. Defense attorneys questioned Wallace’s credibility during cross-examination.

In other news, prosecutors will revise their list of witnesses who could rebut Kerekes possible alibi defense.

Representation of Kocis Death Co-Defendants an Issue

The Times Leader is reporting Joseph Kerekes apparently had some concerns – at least for a while – with attorney Demetrius Fannick defending a co-defendant.

Kerekes and co-defendant Harlow Cuadra were in court Wednesday for a pre-trial hearing.

It was the first court hearing for the two since Fannick was hired to defend Cuadra. But that hiring came after Fannick had been talking with Kerekes.

Kerekes appeared to take issue with the switch Wednesday. As soon as Fannick walked into court, Kerekes asked Fannick to speak with him. But Fannick couldn’t.

Kerekes yelled that he didn’t want Fannick involved in the case if he was going to use anything they had spoken about.

“Harlow won’t roll on me,” Kerekes said.

Deputy sheriffs and one of his attorneys, John Pike, later spoke with Kerekes. And he appeared calm when a judge later discussed the issue.

The outburst wasn’t the only issue created Wednesday by Fannick’s involvement in the case.

Attorneys for both suspects filed some pre-trial motions in the case. Wednesday’s hearing was to discuss two of those requests filed by Kerekes: one to have the charges thrown out for a lack of evidence and the other to make prosecutors reveal whether they think Kerekes was the principal killer.

Assistant District Attorney Mike Melnick said he needed to call an additional witness to address the lack-of-evidence issue. But because doing that would require Fannick to cross-examine the witness, Melnick wanted to wait until the judge ruled on whether Fannick will be allowed to represent Cuadra before having that hearing.

Melnick and his team of prosecutors are trying to have Fannick disqualified from the case because his past discussions with Kerekes create a conflict of interest, they said.

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. said he will first decide that issue before ruling on the evidence issue.

Fannick has to file a response to Melnick’s motion by Feb. 29. The judge also wants Kerekes’ attorneys to determine if an actual or potential conflict exists with Fannick’s representation of Cuadra, whether Kerekes can waive that conflict, and, if he can, will he waive it. That, too, has to be filed by Feb. 29. A hearing on the issue is set for 8:30 a.m. March 5.

Olszewski also said he will issue a ruling on whether prosecutors have to reveal if Kerekes was the principal killer soon.

----

Meanwhile, the Citizen's Voice also covers the story and adds:

Kerekes’ attorneys argued in prior motions prosecutors must say whether they believe their client is just an accomplice in the murder. If he was just an accomplice, prosecutors cannot pursue the death penalty, Kerekes’ conflict counsel John Pike, Mark Bufalino and Shelly Centini said.

Assistant District Attorney Mike Melnick said the commonwealth would be “in a box” if it disclosed one theory about the murder at this stage and it turned out to be incorrect.

“That has had catastrophic impact” on prosecution cases in the past, he said.

Olszewski wouldn’t allow Cuadra’s former attorneys to step down until the issue over potential conflict with Fannick is resolved. Fannick took over as Cuadra’s counsel Jan. 28 for conflict counsel Stephen Menn, Michael Senape and Paul Galante.

Past Criminal Record of Joseph Kerekes...

One of the motions filed recently by Joseph Kerekes' attorneys is the request to keep any past criminal record of Kerekes out of trial. While the request is procedural, and generally done in all such cases... with the exception of one misdemeanor driving charge, all of the other 'crimes' Joe has commited seem to be simple traffic infractions. Though he's hardly been the poster child for safe driving, I fail to see why Kerekes' prior criminal record would really be of any use to the prosecution and/or jury anyway:

Chesapeake, VA:

GT02047941-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M RECKLESS DRIVING 80/55 Misdemeanor 10/10/02 Guilty
GT98033912-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M SPD 37/25 Infraction 08/14/98 Prepaid

Norfolk, VA:

GT02020837-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M SPEEDING 48/30 RDR Infraction 05/17/02 Prepaid
GT02020838-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M NO SEAT BELT Infraction 05/17/02 Prepaid

Virginia Beach, VA:

GT06082915-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M TINTED OR SMOKED WIN Infraction 01/29/07 Prepaid
GT03070281-00 KEREKES, JOESPH M IMPROPER EQUIP Infraction 01/12/04 Guilty
GT98073934-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH SPD 50/35 Infraction 11/04/98 Prepaid
GT02073868-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M 50/35 SP Infraction 01/08/03 Prepaid
GT98027810-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M NO DECAL Infraction 05/18/98 Dismissed
GT98043396-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M NOISE Other 07/27/98 Prepaid
GT98043397-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M CRUISING Infraction 07/27/98 Prepaid
GT05072598-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M OPER UNINSPECTED VEH Infraction 01/05/06 Prepaid
GT98065233-00 KEREKES, JOSEPH M DEF EQUIP Infraction 11/02/98 Prepaid
GT98039875-00 KEREKES, JOSPEH M DIS HWY SIGN Infraction 06/26/98 Prepaid

I also checked Miami/Dade County, Las Vegas/Clark County, and every County in PA for any past criminal charges, and found nothing.

You would almost think the defense would actually want his past criminal record shown, as he clearly hasn't been charged with any prior violent crimes... or perhaps I simply missed something.

New Trial Date(s)?

While we await the next status conference for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes... (still currently scheduled for February 20, 2008)... one question that I've received several times is: 'will the judge issue a new trial date during this hearing?'

My best-guess is that it's highly doubtful any trial date(s) will be announced until the judge rules on the severance issue... and there's still no guarantee that he'll even rule on that issue during this upcoming hearing. As I had mentioned earlier... it's quite likely Harlow and Joe will be given separate trials... the question is when?

Once I know the official answer... so will you.

Keeping Track... Motions Filed

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski certainly has quite a bit on his plate right now... and I'm sure we haven't seen the last of the pre-trial motions filed. Since there have been several additions, I figured I'd keep a running score as to what's been filed to date... and still awaiting an answer:

Joseph Kerekes' attorneys have filed the following requests:

1. Move the trial out of Luzerne County.
2. Have a separate trial for Kerekes and co-defendant Harlow Cuadra.
3. Prevent the prosecutors from using any statements Kerekes made to police, the contents of any conversations recorded at a California beach, and the contents of any evidence seized from Kerekes' e-mail account and Virginia home.
4. Keep any past criminal record of Kerekes out of trial.
5. Prosecutors need to indicate whether they believe Kerekes was the principal killer, accomplice, or co-conspirator.
6. All the charges tossed out and Kerekes released from prison.

Meanwhile, Harlow Cuadra's attorneys filed:

1. Harlow be transferred from the Lackawanna County prison to Luzerne County Correctional Facility.

Perhaps with Fannick at the helm now... we'll begin to see a little more activity on Cuadra's side.

... also ... the prosecution made a motion to amend the wording in criminal conspiracy to commit arson charges filed against both men.

Assuming the next hearing on 02/20/08 isn't delayed, it should make for an enlightening time.

Hearing Postponed

The status conference that was originally scheduled for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes on 01/30/08 has been rescheduled to 02/20/08, according to court orders filed by Judge Peter Paul Olszewski, Jr. on 01/29/08.

A Return to 'Normal'...

Starting Wednesday, things around here will be back to normal. I've been in Alaska since last Wednesday, and will be returning to Virginia tomorrow (Tuesday) - late. Since I'll be on a plane or in an airport from 2:00 AM AST until 9:30 PM EST - there won't be any updates done during this time.

Some stories I am planning to work on (once I recover from jet-lag) are as follows:

1. The Transcripts for the Beach Tapes (Day 2).

2. Harlow's possible new attorney (note: as of this post, Fannick hasn't entered his appearance yet, and until that's done, it's not official... so I'll be waiting for that to happen before discussing this topic any further).

3. Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' status conference on January 30, 2008.

The Next Hearing: 01/30/08

Accused murder suspects Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes will be attending their next status/pre-trial conference on January 30, 2008. There are several motions that Judge Olszewski should be ruling on:

The prosecution made a motion to amend the wording in criminal conspiracy to commit arson charges filed against the men. It didn't get much attention because it was apparently just a typo. I believe the prosecutors, when they filed the formal charges in county court, put in the wrong subsection for that charge. For instance, they might have written 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3301 (a)(1)(i) when they actually meant 18 Pa. C.S.A. 3301 (a)(1)(ii).

With this charge, I think the differences in the subsections was whether they allegedly lit the fire to destroy evidence or endanger others. I don't recall exactly which one they meant to write, but they wrote the other.

Kerekes' attorneys also say prosecutors did not present enough evidence at the preliminary hearing to take Kerekes to trial on all his charges, homicide included. His attorneys want all the charges tossed out and Kerekes released from prison. It is essentially an appeal of the preliminary hearing ruling and commonly done in almost every homicide case here.

Ruzzo asked for Cuadra to be transferred from the Lackawanna County prison to Luzerne County Correctional Facility, because Cuadra’s confinement status is making it more difficult to prepare his defense. Melnick has argued Cuadra and Kerekes should be kept at separate facilities in the interest of justice.

The most interesting motion (perhaps) is the one filed by Kerekes' attorney Mark Bufalino, in which he says that the prosecutors need to indicate whether they believe Kerekes was the principal killer, accomplice, or co-conspirator. The issue, Bufalino says, is that he believes prosecutors can only seek the death penalty for a principal killer. Meanwhile Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Mike Melnick says evidence in the case “fully suggests” both suspects could be principals in the case. Judge Olszewski has already received the legal briefs from both sides outlining their arguments, and may rule on this motion as well.

Judge Olszewski has also given both sides until January 31, 2008 to file any additional motions, but it wouldn't surprise me if we hear about these (if any) new filings/requests during this hearing.

Yesterday's Hearing in Review

From the Citizen's Voice: Luzerne County prosecutors may have to place the murder weapon in the hand of one of two Virginia Beach men they say committed the cold-blooded murder of Bryan Kocis.

Harlow Raymond Cuadra and Joseph Manuel Kerekes are charged with conspiring to kill Kocis — their rival in the gay pornography business — then torching his Dallas Township home to destroy evidence. Kocis’ body was found in January on a couch in his Midland Drive home, but prosecutors have not identified who they believe slashed and stabbed the 44-year-old.

Luzerne County District Attorney David Lupas’ decision to seek the death penalty against both Cuadra, 26, and Kerekes, 33, could force his office to distinguish who is the killer, Luzerne County Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. hinted during a Friday morning status conference in the case.

Rulings in previous cases suggest prosecutors can seek the death penalty against the principal of a murder, not an accomplice.

Evidence, including wire tapped conversations, suggest both Cuadra and Kerekes may have stabbed Kocis, argued Assistant District Attorney Michael Melnick.

“The only two people who know what happened in that room of that home are Mr. Kerekes and Mr. Cuadra,” Melnick said.

The issue arose after Kerekes’ attorneys Mark Bufalino, Shelley Centini and John Pike filed a motion to compel prosecutors to outline their theory of the crime, specifically if their client is the alleged attacker or accomplice. Lawyers for both sides will have to file additional briefs on the issue, which will be discussed Jan. 30 — the next status conference in the case.

Other issues discussed Friday include:

Olszewski heard arguments about whether the Luzerne County public defender’s office should continue to represent Cuadra. First Assistant Public Defender Al Flora Jr. represented Kocis on a previous matter in 2001 and also represents his family in estate matters. Cuadra’s attorney Bill Ruzzo said Flora’s expected testimony could force him to challenge the credibility of his boss.

The district attorney’s office is asking for conflict counsel to replace the public defenders’ office because a similar issue almost caused a mistrial in the William Rohland death penalty case earlier this year.

Olszewski is concerned new counsel could delay the case further. The judge plans to rule on the issue in the future.

Ruzzo is asking for Cuadra to be transferred from the Lackawanna County prison to Luzerne County Correctional Facility, where Kerekes is being held. Cuadra’s confinement status is making it more difficult to prepare his defense, Ruzzo said.

Olszewski wants the district attorney’s office to explain what legal standing it has to determine where Cuadra should be jailed. Melnick argued Cuadra and Kerekes should be kept at separate facilities in the interest of justice. Olszewski wants both Melnick and Ruzzo to argue their position in briefs.

Due to almost 5,000 pages of discovery information in the case, Olszewski extended the deadline for pre-trial motions in the case until Jan. 31.

The Times Leader reports: Attorneys for homicide suspect Joseph Kerekes might be able to challenge the prosecution’s intention to seek the death penalty for their client.

Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra are facing homicide and other charges in the death of Bryan Kocis in Dallas Township. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for both suspects.

But at a pre-trial conference Friday for both men, a Kerekes attorney, Mark Bufalino, said he needs prosecutors to indicate whether they believe Kerekes was the principal killer, accomplice, or co-conspirator.

The issue, Bufalino said, is that he believes prosecutors can only seek the death penalty for a principal killer.

If prosecutors do not believe Kerekes is the principal killer, Bufalino could ask that prosecutors be prohibited from seeking the death penalty for Kerekes.

“We need to know what the Commonwealth is alleging,” Bufalino said.

Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Mike Melnick said evidence in the case “fully suggests” both suspects could be principals in the case.

Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. told the parties to file legal briefs outlining their arguments.

Then he will decide what should be done after a Jan. 30 hearing.

Cuadra, 26, and Joseph Kerekes, 33, are charged with homicide in the Jan. 24 slaying of Kocis, a gay porn producer. Investigators claim the two Virginia men killed Kocis, their rival in the gay porn industry, inside his home and then set the house on fire.

Kocis, 44, was found dead by firefighters.

The parties went before Olszewski on Friday to address numerous requests already made in the case, including one request by prosecutors to have public defenders removed from defending Cuadra.

Assistant District Attorney Tim Doherty said a conflict of interest exists with public defenders representing Cuadra because the first assistant public defender, Al Flora, previously represented the victim in the case.

That means Flora might be called as a witness at the homicide trial.

Olszewski will issue a ruling on that request.

He will also be issuing rulings on whether prosecutors can amend the wording in criminal conspiracy to commit arson charges filed against the men; whether Cuadra should be moved from the Lackawanna County Prison to the Luzerne County Correctional Facility; and whether Kerekes’ charges should stand.

Bufalino and Kerekes’ other attorneys, Shelley Centini and John Pike, said prosecutors did not present enough evidence at a preliminary hearing to take Kerekes to trial. They want the homicide and other charges dismissed.

The judge on Friday gave the parties additional time to file other pre-trial motions. That must be done by Jan. 31.

Harlow & Joe's Status Conference

Update @ 4:35 pm - Kerekes' attorneys have filed a petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, saying that the prosecutor did not present enough evidence at the preliminary hearing to take Kerekes to trial on all his charges, homicide included. The attorneys want all the charges tossed out and Kerekes released from prison.

It's essentially an appeal of the preliminary hearing ruling and commonly done in almost every homicide case in Luzerene County. This motion will be heard on 01/30/08, and though the chances of them winning are just about nil, it certainly still doesn't hurt to try.

Update @ 1:53 pm - The judge has extended the deadline for the defense to file pre-trial motions. The deadline is now 1-31-08.

Update: From a court-watcher (10:48 am) - "The hearing is over. There were NO rulings yet. But that could change by the end of the day."

----

The Times Leader is reporting that attorneys for homicide suspect Joseph Kerekes on Friday indicated they might be able to legally challenge the prosecution's intent to seek the death penalty for Kerekes.

Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra are facing homicide and other charges in the death of Bryan Kocis in Dallas Township.

Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for both suspects.

At a pre-trial hearing Friday, a Kerekes attorney, Mark Bufalino, said he needed prosecutors to indicate whether they believe Kerekes was the principal killer, accomplice, or co-conspirator.

He needs to know that because he said prosecutors can only seek the death penalty for the principal killer.

If prosecutors do not believe Kerekes is the principal killer, Bufalino could ask that they be prohibited from seeking the death penalty for Kerekes.

Luzerne County Assistant District Attorney Mike Melnick said evidence in the case points to both men being blamed as the principal killer.

Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. told Bufalino and Melnick to file legal briefs outlining their position on the issue.

A hearing on the issue is set for Jan. 30.

The Upcoming Status Conference

With Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' status conference coming up on 12/21/07 @ 8:30 AM, I thought I'd compile a list of motions that have been filed by all sides... to which we should finally get some answers:

Motions filed by/for Joseph Kerekes:

Motion for Enlargement of Time (basically to extend the trial date)

Motion to Compel Comm's response to Def's Request/Bill of Particulars & Rule filed. (The defense basically wants to know why the Commonwealth Attorneys Office hasn't turned over all of the Bill of Particulars).

Motions filed by/for Harlow Cuadra:

Initial Pretrial Motions filed. (These are requests to have more time to file pre-trial motions and postpone the March trial date.)

Motions filed by/for the Commonwealth Attorneys Office:

Notice of Comm's Intention to Seek Evidence of Other Crimes of the Def under Rule 404b filed (the district attorney’s office wants to be able to tell jurors about Cuadra and Kerekes’ alleged attempts to provide false alibis to deflect blame in the case).

The prosecution also wants to be able to present evidence about Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes’ business dealings during their trial. “Specifically, the evidence of the defendants’ male escort and pornography business clearly shows and demonstrates that both defendants viewed Cobra Video, the company owned by the victim, as their main rival and their whole object was to form a plan to rub out Bryan Kocis and secure the services of Sean Lockhart, the star of Cobra Video.”

They also want to prevent Cuadra and Kerekes’ attorneys from telling jurors about Kocis’ 2001 arrest for having sex with a 15-year-old boy he met online.

And finally... the prosecutors want the judge to postpone all matters in the Kocis homicide case until attorneys from outside the public defender’s office are appointed to represent Harlow Cuadra.