PPO Requests the Attendance of Sean Macias... Details

CERTIFICATE OF JUDGE OF REQUESTING STATE FOR ATTENDANCE OF OUT OF STATE WITNESS

I, Peter Paul Olszewski, judge of Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, State of Pennsylvania, a Court of Record, certify:

1. That there is now pending in this Court the above-entitled prosecution by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania against HARLOW CUADRA/JOSEPH KEREKES, wherein defendants have been charged with the crimes of: 18 Pa.C.S.A. §2501(a), Criminal Homicide; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §903, Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Homicide; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3301(a) (1) (1), Arson — Danger of Death of Bodily Injury, a. felony of the first degree; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3301(a) (1) (ii), Arson — Inhabited Building or Structure, a felony of the first degree; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §3701(a)(l)(i), Robbery — Inflict Serious Bodily Injury, a felony of the first degree; 18 Pa.C.S.A. 1(a), Theft by Unlawful Taking — Movable Property, a felony of the third degree; 18 Pa.C.S.A. 49l0(l), Tamper With/Fabricate Physical Evidence, a misdemeanor of the second degree; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §5510 Abuse of Corpse, a misdemeanor of the second degree; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §903, Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Robbery under §3701(a (1)(i), a felony of the first degree; 18 Pa.C.S.A. §903, Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Tampering With/Fabricating Physical Evidence under §4910(1), a misdemeanor of the second degree and; § 903, Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Arson and Related Offenses under §3301(a)(1)(i), a felony of the first degree, and Criminal Use of a Communication Facility, 18 Pa. C.S.A. 7512, a felony of the third degree.

2. That the above-entitled matter is currently scheduled for jury trial beginning September 2, 2008 in the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski.

3. That Attorney Sean Macias, whose current address is XXX, Glendale, CA is a necessary and material witness for the State of Pennsylvania for the reason that the Commonwealth asserts he was on the phone with the victim when the alleged assailant arrived and the victim acknowledged the arrival of the expected model.

4. That if the said witness, Attorney Sean Macias comes into the State of Pennsylvania in obedience to an Order directing him to attend and testify at trial in Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas, the laws of the State of Pennsylvania and of any other State through which he may be required to pass by ordinary course of travel to attend the trial, will give him protection from arrest or service of process, either civil or criminal, in connection with matters that arose before his entrance into the State of Pennsylvania.

5. That Attorney Macias’s testimony in the above-entitled matter will require him to be present in the State of Pennsylvania for approximately three (3) days, (beginning September 10-13, 2008), not including the time necessary to travel from and return to Los Angeles, California. The State of Pennsylvania will provide round-trip transportation, lodging and meals, witness fees and any other related costs ordered by a Court in Los Angeles County, California, for Attorney Sean Macias. A check in the amount of $25.00 per day witness fees will be provided pursuant to the provisions of the Uniform Act to Secure the Attendance of Out-of-State Witnesses in Criminal Proceedings.

6. That the State of Pennsylvania believes that it will not cause undue hardship to Attorney Sean Macias to attend and testify for the State of Pennsylvania at trial in the above-entitled matter.

7. That this certificate is made for the purpose of being presented to a judge of a court of record of the County of Los Angeles, State of California, where Attorney Sean Maclas is now working or residing upon proceedings to compel him to attend and testify in Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas upon the day and date set forth.

Request for Attendance of Out of State Witness Filed

The Commonwealth Attorney's office has filed several motions requesting the attendance of an out of state witness, presumably for the upcoming suppression hearings for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes:

1. 07/17/2008 Comm's Request for Attendance of Out of State Witness filed. Luzerne County District Attorney's Office

2. 07/17/2008 Certificate of Judge Requesting State for Attendance of Out of State Witness filed. Luzerne County District Attorney's Office

3. 07/17/2008 Certificate of Clerk for Attendance of Out of State Witness filed. Reilly, Robert

I'm not sure who the exact witness is (or witnesses), but I'll try to find out as quickly as I can. Oh, and just in case anyone's wondering... Robert Reilly is the clerk, not the witness.

Update @ 12:07 PM: It looks like it's Sean Macias, the attorney from Los Angeles.

In Kocis Case, a Tough, Fair Jurist Welcomed.

With the past week being fairly busy... the hearing... posting documents... and additional news, I somehow over looked an interesting opion about the case, written by staff writer Edward Lewis of the Times Leader this past Monday:

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. is no stranger to controversy.

When he senses an opportunity to challenge a legal issue, he’ll certainly provoke until he’s satisfied with the answer.

Prosecutors, defense lawyers, defendants and even probation officers are not off limits for Olszewski’s crosshairs. I know a journalist or two who also have been targeted by the fearless judge in open court.

He doesn’t argue the law in an insulting way, nor does he talk down to those who stand before him. It’s black or white in his courtroom.

That’s why I respect Olszewski.

He’s tough, but at the same time, he’s fair and perhaps slightly compassionate.

Last week, Olszewski asked defense lawyers representing two homicide suspects, Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes, if either of their clients would implicate the other in the Bryan Kocis murder trial.

I sat back trying to absorb the bold question.

The lawyers – Mark Bufalino, John Pike, Shelley Centini, Paul Galante, Steven Menn and Michael Senape - tried to evade the query.

Olszewski kept prodding.

Black-and-white proceedings a plus

I thought to myself there was no way the lawyers were going to reveal their defense strategies in a room filled with prosecutors and investigators.

Perhaps behind closed doors. But that doesn’t happen often, only in cases when court-appointed defense lawyers want more money for expert witnesses and need to outline their strategy in the absence of prosecutors and the public.

When Olszewski repeated his question again and again, the lawyers had no choice but admit that Cuadra and Kerekes might present some hostility toward the other during the capital murder trial.

It was a classic legal debate between experienced trial lawyers and the judge.

Olszewski not only chastised the defense lawyers, he also scolded prosecutors for filing investigative reports in the Clerk of Courts office that made them public.

Olszewski cautioned that such an illogical move could jeopardize the defendants’ right to a fair and balanced trial.

There’s more theatrics to come in this unique drama.

Less than two months from the scheduled start of the capital murder trial, the defense lawyers continue to shuffle in and out of the case.

Since the two defendants were extradited from another state last July to face the homicide charges, they have been represented by private attorneys, Luzerne County public defenders, and court-appointed attorneys.

To make matters more confusing, there remains a fight in state appellate court for a private attorney to rejoin the case.

Last week’s hearing was the first court proceeding that I’ve covered at the main courthouse in more than a year.

The courtroom was initially filled with shades of gray, but Olszewski used the paintbrush he often deftly wields and did his best to make everything black and white.

He’d better keep those brushes handy for future court proceedings in this case.

Order Denying Petition for Review

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

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

Update: The Citizens' Voice also carries the story.

Next Hearing Date Scheduled

A suppression hearing has been scheduled for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes, to take place in front of Judge Peter Paul Olszewski on 07/24/2008 at 8:30 am.

Update: The Times Leader also reports that there will be a hearing on 07/31/2008 as well.

DA's Response to Cuadra's Omnibus Pretrial Motion

COMMONWEALTH'S ANSWER TO DEFENDENT

HARLOW CUADRA'S OMNIBUS PRETRIAL MOTION

1. Admitted in part. The Defendant Cuadra is also charged with Criminal Use of the Communications device.

2. Admitted

3. Denied. The Defendant-Cuadra has failed to demonstrate the need for the Commonwealth to respond to the Bill of Particulars. The Commonwealth has responded to all discovery requests. The Defendant-Cuadra has failed to respond to the Commonwealth's discovery requests.

I. Request for individual voir dire
II. Motion for change of venue
III. Motion in limeline-photographs
IV. Cuadra's prior criminal record
V. Defendant's prior bad acts (A), (B) & (C)
VI. Motion to suppress oral and/or written statements
VII. Motion to quash-lack of specificty
VIII. Motion to suppress Black's Beach/Crab Catchers tapes
IX. Motion for severance
X. Motion to suppress search warrant executed on 1028 Stratem Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia
XI. Motion to suppress search warrants executed on defendant-Cuadra's E-Mail Accounts
XII. Motion on definition of life imprisonment-Simmons instruction
XIII. Defendant's claim that a "death qualified jury" deprives him of a fair trial
XIV. Defendant's claim that he is entitled to a bifurcated proceeding
XV. Defendant's claim that juries do not follow the standard instructions
XVI. Defendant's claim that 42 Pa.C.S.A. 9711 is unconstitutional
XVII. Defendant's claim that the death penalty is cruel and unusual punishment
XVIII. Defendant's petition for Writ of Habeaus Corpus
XIX. Defendant's motion to dismiss aggravating factors

This is in response to Harlow Caudra's Omnibus Pretrial Motion filed on June 4, 2008.

I. Request for Individual Voir Dire

4. Denied.

5. Admitted.

WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth concurs in the Defendant's request for Individual Voir Dire as this is a capital case.

II. Motion For Change of Venue

6. Denied.

7. Admitted in part and denied in part. The Commonwealth concurs that the media coverage has been extensive. The Commonwealth denies that the coverage has been inflammatory, sensational and highly inculpatory.

8. Denied. The Commonwealth believes that a fair and impartial jury can be selected.

9. Denied. The Defendant fails to note that the Commonwealth is responding to motions filed by Defendant-Cuadra and/or Kerekes. The Commonwealth's answers are required for the court to render its rulings in this case. The Commonwealth notes that the Defendants have issued press releases and provided information to "Out" magazine which thereafter published an article concerning this case.

WHEREFORE, the Commonwealth requests this Honorable Court to defer ruling on this motion until the litigants and the court can gauge the effect of this publicity after individual voir dire.