With the risk of sounding like a broken record... Harlow Cuadra apparently needs new attorneys yet again. In a court filing last Friday, Harlow's trial attorneys Paul Walker and Joseph D’Andrea state:
"Since the defendant has been continously incarcerated since the time of his arrest, it is presumed that he is without funds to retain counsel to pursue his appeal."
"The petitioners respectfully request that this honorable court permit them to withdraw counsel, and to appoint counsel to represent the defendant on appeal."
Even though we've heard this 'indigent' excuse from Harlow before... the law states:
According to "Pa. Code Rule 120: Under paragraph (B)(2), counsel must file a motion to withdraw in all cases, and counsel’s obligation to represent the defendant, whether as retained or appointed counsel, remains until leave to withdraw is granted by the court. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Librizzi, 810 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). The court must make a determination of the status of a case before permitting counsel to withdraw. Although there are many factors considered by the court in determining whether there is good cause to permit the withdrawal of counsel, when granting leave, the court should determine whether new counsel will be stepping in or the defendant is proceeding without counsel, and that the change in attorneys will not delay the proceedings or prejudice the defendant, particularly concerning time limits. In addition, case law suggests other factors the court should consider, such as whether (1) the defendant has failed to meet his or her financial obligations to pay for the attorney’s services and (2) there is a written contractual agreement between counsel and the defendant terminating representation at a specified stage in the proceedings such as sentencing. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Roman. Appeal of Zaiser, 549 A.2d 1320 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)."
So if PPO does allow Walker and D'Andrea to leave, he would have to appoint new lawyers for Harlow's appellate process, but weren't Harlow's original Public Defender’s conflicted out (Guess they can't use them)? Furthermore... the PD’s office usually only has one attorney that handles appeals... that would be Mr. Al Flora... and he would be conflicted out as well… at least I think he should be. Sources tell me that if Walker and D'Andrea are out, then PPO would likely have to appoint conflict counsel to represent Harlow.
"Since the defendant has been continously incarcerated since the time of his arrest, it is presumed that he is without funds to retain counsel to pursue his appeal."
"The petitioners respectfully request that this honorable court permit them to withdraw counsel, and to appoint counsel to represent the defendant on appeal."
Even though we've heard this 'indigent' excuse from Harlow before... the law states:
According to "Pa. Code Rule 120: Under paragraph (B)(2), counsel must file a motion to withdraw in all cases, and counsel’s obligation to represent the defendant, whether as retained or appointed counsel, remains until leave to withdraw is granted by the court. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Librizzi, 810 A.2d 692 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2002). The court must make a determination of the status of a case before permitting counsel to withdraw. Although there are many factors considered by the court in determining whether there is good cause to permit the withdrawal of counsel, when granting leave, the court should determine whether new counsel will be stepping in or the defendant is proceeding without counsel, and that the change in attorneys will not delay the proceedings or prejudice the defendant, particularly concerning time limits. In addition, case law suggests other factors the court should consider, such as whether (1) the defendant has failed to meet his or her financial obligations to pay for the attorney’s services and (2) there is a written contractual agreement between counsel and the defendant terminating representation at a specified stage in the proceedings such as sentencing. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Roman. Appeal of Zaiser, 549 A.2d 1320 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1988)."
So if PPO does allow Walker and D'Andrea to leave, he would have to appoint new lawyers for Harlow's appellate process, but weren't Harlow's original Public Defender’s conflicted out (Guess they can't use them)? Furthermore... the PD’s office usually only has one attorney that handles appeals... that would be Mr. Al Flora... and he would be conflicted out as well… at least I think he should be. Sources tell me that if Walker and D'Andrea are out, then PPO would likely have to appoint conflict counsel to represent Harlow.
Another source tells me that if they (Walker and D'Andrea) aren't allowed to withdraw, it's suspected that they'll file a more in-depth/new concise statement than what they previously filed. If they are allowed to withdraw, the extension would give new attorneys time to get familiar with, and then file their own concise statement. However... the way PPO acted during the last hearing where Cuadra asked for new attorneys, I doubt he'll let them go. Although, with this case, anything is possible.
I guess we'll just have to wait until May 22nd to find out... but I will say from a personal opinion... there's never a dull moment with Harlow's trial... which makes me wonder if this latest 'stunt' wasn't already planned... if nothing else, there certainly seems to be a pattern.
Apparently the case law allows withdrawal of service for non-payment as a reasonable cause, but if Walker and D'Andrea are NOT allowed to withdraw, I really wonder how vigerously they will pursue the appeal. Some of the prior items are bound to be allowed to stand on appeal and I doubt enough will be sustained and rejected to allow a new trial.
ReplyDeleteCould be interesting.
I hate to say this about a case that involved so much tragedy for all sides, but it has been damn entertaining!
ReplyDeleteIn addition, I don't see anything evil about Gladis. I see a mother trying to save her son, as most any mother would do. Just because she doesn't have a good command of English doesn't mean she's not a human being. Even the ancestors of so-called "native Americans" were immigrants once.
pizzaman, I have to disagree:
ReplyDelete1. Gladis displayed despicable behavior during the trial. Her family was trying to intimidate the Kosis family during the trial. She made a fool out of herself on tv. She couldn’t speak English during the sentencing faze of the trail. But, on television she was speaking decent English. She said the Kosis family was dirty and all about, porn, money, and babies. The Kosis family was handled themselves with class.
2. How could one be in this country for over 30 years and not be able to speak English fluently?
How could one be in this country for over 30 years and not be able to speak English fluently?
ReplyDeleteIt's been a long tradition in America that many first generation immigrants never learn English beyond a rudimentary level. In Boston's North End there were still a few elderly Italian-only speakers when I came here 25 years ago. In the Chinatown wards, ballots in Chinese are still available at the polling stations. It's the second and third generations that merged with the rest of society.
When I grew up in Tampa, there were still Cuban cigar makers, who spoke only Spanish even though they had been in this country 40 or 50 years.
just wondering...in the lawyers' statement it says Harlow is "presumed" to be without funds...but with his mother making appeals for money, how can they have such a presumption? don't they need MORE than just a presumption without any proof? or are they just trying to get out of the appeal any way they can?
ReplyDeleteor are they just trying to get out of the appeal any way they can?
ReplyDeleteThat could well be the case, IMHO. I believe it's been reported that they didn't want Cuadra to take the stand and he rejected their advice. As a result he convicted himself and made his attorneys look bad. I'd guess they aren't too happy with him.
Harlow is in jail and has no income to speak of at this time. Judging from prior financial records as reported on this blog, Harlow and Joe were really deep in debt to credit cards, etc, to say nothing of thier house and cars, which appear to have been leased.
ReplyDeleteThe attorney bills MAY or MAY NOT have been fully paid to date, but they evidently were paid primarilly from "donations" from friends and former clients.
The apparent reason for the crime was for money that was hoped to be derived from DVD sales to sustain the life style that was apparently endangered.
This is my take on the case.
I'm told that Walker and D'Andrea were paid around $35k for their services... which would make sense (or maybe not considering what happened), and since there's been no complaint(s) filed by them about not being paid for the criminal trial, I'll assume this to be true.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Harlow's 'well' really has run dry... again.
Who knows... maybe he can get John Roecker to 'donate' another $15k or so for the appellate attorney... if not, I'm sure Mitch is still a willing follower... or is he?
PC,
ReplyDeleteP.T Barnum once said, "there's a sucker born every minute"
Did anyone ever think of this? When is reality going to set in for Harlow's flock (Mitch, Captain, JJ, Nep ect) that, Caudra will never see the light of day again??????? It will probably (hopefully) take this crew a couple of years to figure that out and finally move on and cut their bait. Maybe not?
ReplyDeleteUm, didn't PPO tell these 2 lawyers that "if your in, then your in for the long haul"? So him letting them out wouldn't he be going back on his own ruling?
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that nothing is written in stone until the appeals process is over. Personally, I don't thing Cuadra has much of a chance of winning a new trial on appeal -- and even if he did, I think he'd be convicted a second time.
ReplyDeleteThere's always a chance, though, that I'm wrong, along with everybody else who's so sure Cuadra's life is over. Stranger things have happened.
I won't make fun of the Cuadra die-hards until after the fat lady sings.
The attorney debacle is not over yet.
ReplyDeleteApparently Walker and D'Andrea were paid enough to satisfy the billings, so that out is eliminated. They say they were engaged only for the trial, so they may have justification for withdrawal, but that is up to the judge.
Still could be interesting.
" pizzaman said...
ReplyDeleteThe truth is that nothing is written in stone until the appeals process is over."
How true that is. Anyone that's been following this case for a good length of time, will certainly know that trying to predict what's going to happen has been nearly impossible.
I'm not complaining though... it certainly keeps things interesting. :)