As expected, the following orders were filed today in reference to Harlow Cuadra's appeal:
1. 04/09/2009 Order of Court filed. Concise Statements to be filed in 21 days-copy sent to DA & Atty Paul Walker
2. 04/09/2009 1925 B Order Served
Update @ 3:51 PM: I'm told that the 1925(b) Order is the technical name for Concise Statement(s) complained on appeals.
Update @ 4:37 PM: "...that Defendant shall file of record a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) and serve a copy of same upon the District Attorney and this court pursuant to Pa. R.A.P 1925(b)(1). The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error Appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinant issues for the judge."
Update @ 4/12/2009: I meant to post this on Friday, but I've been a little busy... anyhow, a source familiar with the case summed things up pretty well: ...'the defense files notice that they are appealing and then the trial judge has to issue the order for the filing of the when the Concise Statements are to be filed. Because until the Superior Court actually has the appeal, it is still PPO's case and jurisdiction.
... in other words... PPO gets all the info, as does the DA's office that Harlow is specifically aggrevied with, and then they include their responses (i'm almost certain) in the package that eventually gets sent in it's entirety to the Superior Court. So that they then have in their possession all the tools they need to rule on the complaints.'
Should be an interesting read once it's filed...
1. 04/09/2009 Order of Court filed. Concise Statements to be filed in 21 days-copy sent to DA & Atty Paul Walker
2. 04/09/2009 1925 B Order Served
Update @ 3:51 PM: I'm told that the 1925(b) Order is the technical name for Concise Statement(s) complained on appeals.
Update @ 4:37 PM: "...that Defendant shall file of record a Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) and serve a copy of same upon the District Attorney and this court pursuant to Pa. R.A.P 1925(b)(1). The Statement shall concisely identify each ruling or error Appellant intends to challenge with sufficient detail to identify all pertinant issues for the judge."
Update @ 4/12/2009: I meant to post this on Friday, but I've been a little busy... anyhow, a source familiar with the case summed things up pretty well: ...'the defense files notice that they are appealing and then the trial judge has to issue the order for the filing of the when the Concise Statements are to be filed. Because until the Superior Court actually has the appeal, it is still PPO's case and jurisdiction.
... in other words... PPO gets all the info, as does the DA's office that Harlow is specifically aggrevied with, and then they include their responses (i'm almost certain) in the package that eventually gets sent in it's entirety to the Superior Court. So that they then have in their possession all the tools they need to rule on the complaints.'
Should be an interesting read once it's filed...
Wow so it has begun
ReplyDeleteOhhhh and PC u r the man thank u for allowing us to be here
ReplyDelete"JamesG85 said...
ReplyDeleteOhhhh and PC u r the man thank u for allowing us to be here."
I'm just here to perform a service... but thanks for the thanks. :)
The only real and indisputable "error" made at trial was Harlow taking the stand. The appellate court is going to see that as clearly as the jury did. This effort is going to be quashed in record time IMHO.
ReplyDeleteAs before this will end up being a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteThanks for moving the blog and keeping us updated.
As before this will end up being a waste of time.
ReplyDeleteIf the admissibility of some of evidence is an issue, it will be a useful exercise. Admissibility of some of the out-of-state evidence was at least questionable. The appeal will probably clear up the ambiguities, whether the appeal succeeds or not.
Much of the law is based on court decisions. Appeals are the way those decisions are made. Yes, the appeal is about Cuadra, but even if he loses, the law in PA will have benefited.
The appellate court is going to see that as clearly as the jury did.
ReplyDeleteJust to remind you that appeals are about the law not the evidence. The court won't be concerned with guilt or innocence, much less Cuadra's testimony. It will only be concerned with points of law, just like the various motions filed before the trial.
The best Cuadra can hope for is a ruling of reversible error and a new trial.
The appeals court could also rule there was an error, but that it was harmless to the outcome -- or that there was no error at all.
That's pretty much what I was getting at Pizza. The court has to find that any error may have been serious enough to change the outcome of the trial, and so I don't see how it can completely discount the weight of Harlow's testimony in that balance. That is the risk defendants take when they testify, and that is why lawyers usually advise against it.
ReplyDeleteThe appellate court should and hopefully will look at the trial as a whole, in addition to the individual rulings contested by the defense.
We don't know yet what they're going to be appealing, but admission of evidence is the only game-changing possibility, IMHO.
ReplyDeleteIf the knife is excluded, I don't think there would be a new trial, but if the San Diego tapes are excluded, that would be a game-changer, since the prosecution spent 2 or 3 days (I forget) playing them to the jury.
Even without the tapes, I think he'd be convicted, but after some of PC's jury interviews I wouldn't bet on it.
oh gawd please not another trial :)
ReplyDeleteoh all righty then, i guess i can set up a new blog LOL.
title suggestions please?
oh gawd please not another trial :)
ReplyDeleteWell, if I had to guess, I'd say it won't happen. But I don't have a great track record, and the possibility does exist.
I'd hold off on the blog for awhile. ;-)
BB< Why dont you try the reoccuring TAle.. that never ends... it is kind of like peter pans story it never ended... fairytales never do.
ReplyDeleteMost grateful for allowing me to access your blog. A very good read. Great Job P.C.. I am very interested to see what comes of this. Should prove to be another interesting read! Amazing how Harlow is more entertaining in this aspect than he was in his porno. Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteFirst PC thanks for the invite, I know I'm behind the times with that, but a much needed vacation had to be taken.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I seem to remember that a few of the rulings where said to be made with the comment of "that will be for the appeals court if your client is convicted."
So my question is did PPO know that some of his rulings where grounds for appeal?
I think all judges know that all of their rulings are potential grounds for appeal
ReplyDeleteI should have said all of their rulings against the defense, of course.
ReplyDeleteI think willg hit the nail on the head.
ReplyDeleteWhile the defense could certainly appeal every ruling against them, I doubt it would fly in the face of the Superior Court judge.
The three issues I could see being brought up are:
1. Harlow's new defense not having enough time from hire date to trial date.
2. Demetrius Fannick, and that whole issue.
3. Seizure of evidence from the BMW.
I'm sure there will be more, but these are the top 3 that stand-out in my mind.
I personally agree with PPO ruling on #2 and #3... but #1 I think could be an issue, that's just my opinion though.
1. Harlow's new defense not having enough time from hire date to trial date.
ReplyDeletePC, I don't remember them objecting to this at the time, but maybe they did. If they didn't, they have a tough row to hoe.
The Fannick issue is a non-starter, IMO, and will go nowhere.
The BMW search is unimportant, regardless of which way it goes. I never understood why both sides made such a big deal out of it. It was all about a knife that can't be connected to the murder. I don't think winning this point would cause a new trial.
The San Diego Crab Catcher and Blacks Beach tapes are Cuadra's only hope -- and there's plenty to question. PA wiretap rules were not followed. Kerekes and Cuadra weren't wanted for any crime in California. There's also the "expected privacy" issue. If Cuadra's lawyers don't bring this one up, they're throwing away their only chance.
Maybe I am a bit dense, but the tapes from California really did little else than establish an intention for doing a DVD production and skirting the agreement with Cobra for royalties. If Grant was serious, and I doubt it, that might be considered intended fraud, but not a confession of murder or its intent.
ReplyDeleteIf they are not allowed,does not seem to make much differance.
I agree with will g, the big "error" was Harlow taking the stand and placing himself at the scene and time of the crime. I can't quite figure what he was thinking at the time.
Maybe I am a bit dense, but the tapes from California really did little else than establish an intention for doing a DVD production
ReplyDeleteIt was a lot more than that. I can't seem to find the transcripts on the old blog, but I did find PC's summary here.
"pizzaman said...
ReplyDeleteI can't seem to find the transcripts on the old blog"
I removed them a few weeks ago (sorry). When I get the time, I'll re-post them here.
I removed them a few weeks ago (sorry).
ReplyDeleteActually, your summary is better. It makes the point without an hour of reading. ;-)
"pizzaman said...
ReplyDeleteActually, your summary is better. It makes the point without an hour of reading. ;-)"
I've gone ahead and added a link here.
Sorry Pizzaman and PC, my error.
ReplyDeleteI did not remember some of the transcripts. I read them piecemeal over a couple of days and did not really pay that much attention.
Harlow did a major job on himself while on the stand and Joe did not do him any favors either.Of course, neither of these is protestable, they were Defense (?) witnesses put up by the Defense
"Racer said...
ReplyDeleteSorry Pizzaman and PC, my error."
No need to be sorry... after 750+ posts... I forgot about that one too. :)
Pizzaman said "PA wiretap rules were not followed."
ReplyDeleteI totally have missed the boat on this one. Was this disclosed on one of PC's posts? Where is there a conflict between PA wiretap laws and California wiretap laws?
If there are differences in the laws, I would think this would be as strong a point of appeal as the lack of time to prepare for trial.
Where is there a conflict between PA wiretap laws and California wiretap laws?There is a definite difference in the requirements between PA and CA. It's very complex and I don't remember all the details, but I believe a local PA magistrate has to sign off on it and that wasn't done. I believe there's also a provision that if the recordings are made where there is no expectation of privacy, the warrant isn't needed.
ReplyDeleteIt was all laid out in the defense's motions to have the tapes quashed, but PPO ruled against them. Finding those motions on the old blog will likely take awhile, but I'll try to search for them tomorrow.
I'm not saying such an appeal would succeed, of course, but it's the one area where the evidence is very important and PPO's ruling seemed somewhat questionable... something that could cause attorneys to argue among themselves. ;-)
Judges tend to lean toward the prosecution when rulings are a toss-up for a very good reason: the defense can appeal after the trial, but the prosecution cannot.
"mrrobato said...
ReplyDeleteI totally have missed the boat on this one. Was this disclosed on one of PC's posts? Where is there a conflict between PA wiretap laws and California wiretap laws?"
Here's a portion of the argument(s).
After reading through the California and Pa regulations regarding electronic recording, it seems both state's officials were pretty cavalier about the process. The concept of "public conversation" and "expected privacy" seems to be at the heart of the question.
ReplyDeleteIn a restaurant like Crab Catcher's, I would lean toward the "lack of privacy" being expected but at Black's Beach it is somewhat less compelling an argument.
Even so, if the tapes are disallowed, it does not appear to be enough for a ruling for a new trial, although maybe one less life sentence?
After reading through the California and Pa regulations regarding electronic recording, it seems both state's officials were pretty cavalier about the process.I was thinking at the time of the defense's challenge, "Why didn't they follow PA requirements?" It's not like they were onerous.
ReplyDeleteEven so, if the tapes are disallowed, it does not appear to be enough for a ruling for a new trial, although maybe one less life sentence?The appeals court won't reduce the sentence. The only remedy they have is to force a new trial, and the tapes were such a high profile part of the prosecution's case that I think a new trial would be ordered.
There's still plenty of evidence to convict Cuadra without the tapes, but some of the refutation of his testimony was on the tape. A new trial with a new jury could possibly result in a lesser sentence, but who knows?
For mrrobato, Racer and anybody else interested.
ReplyDeletePC supplied the link to the defense's position regarding the California tapes.
After searching for awhile, I found the judge's ruling here.Now after all my harping on the tapes, we'll find out Cuadra is not going to appeal that issue. ;-)
Pardon the previous screwed up messages, but Blogger suddenly seems to be ignoring the line break after a formatting ">".
ReplyDeleteIt looks fine in the preview!?!
Thanks PC and Pizzaman for the additional info. regarding the conflicting laws regarding the wire intercept.
ReplyDeleteIt would seem to me that PA was clearly the state with the greater interest and that they did in fact fail to act "with an abundance of caution." It must surely drive the prosecution crazy that the detectives did not follow protocol in this operation.
I think this could easily be appealed and the tapes could be tossed. Maybe 50/50???
The other issue - 6 weeks to prepare for a capital murder trial - I would consider that grounds for appeal as well. Again, maybe 50/50. Who knows in court?
Will be interesting for sure.
In a restaurant like Crab Catcher's, I would lean toward the "lack of privacy" being expectedI agree with that 100%. But note that part of the Crab Catcher tape was recorded while driving down the highway. That part of the tape seems to be expected privacy.
ReplyDeleteAlso, speaking of expected privacy - where the crab catchers tapes may not warrant privacy, I believe Harlow made a comment like 'when we get to the beach, you can ask me anything you want'... wouldn't that be considered expected privacy?
ReplyDelete"mark said...
ReplyDeleteAlso, speaking of expected privacy - where the crab catchers tapes may not warrant privacy, I believe Harlow made a comment like 'when we get to the beach, you can ask me anything you want'... wouldn't that be considered expected privacy?"
Legally? No.
First, PC thanks for the invite. Second, the concise statement is just that a CONCISE (to the point)statement of what defense counsel thinks went wrong with the trial. If defense doesn't bring up all their issues now, they don't get to bring them up later. So, it's imperative that the issues are brought up now. the only issue that can't be brought up now is ineffective assistance of counsel. They will appeal in general his sentence. They can't bring up Fannick, that was already ruled on by the appellate courts. They can try, but it won't go anywhere. This will be on appeal for a very, very long time. Trust me.
ReplyDelete"babypens40 said...
ReplyDeleteThey can't bring up Fannick, that was already ruled on by the appellate courts"
Sure they can... this issue was brought to the Supreme Court of PA, but later dropped by Harlow before a ruling was ever issued.
Sure they can... this issue was brought to the Supreme Court of PA, but later dropped by Harlow before a ruling was ever issued.
ReplyDeleteRight. And if I remember correctly, the appeals court didn't really rule against the appeal, but merely that it was inappropriate until after the trial.