Seems there's been some activity on the Harlow Cuadra front, here's a brief update, with more details to follow later:
05/07/2009 Comm's Motion for Enlargement of Time to Response to Def's Concise Statement filed
05/08/2009 Motion to Withdraw as Counsel & Rule filed. Hearing on 5-22-09
The first one is pretty easy to understand, I'm awaiting some additional information on the second motion, as it sounds like one, or both of Harlow's attorneys want to withdraw as counsel.
Update @ 12:24 PM: Sources tell me briefly that the motion to withdraw as counsel was only signed by Paul Walker, apparently something about him not being paid... I'll try to have more clarification and details shortly.
Update @ 3:01 PM: Here's part of the motion to withdraw as counsel, I skipped some of it because it's all a rehash of things that have already occured:
11. On April 7, 2009, the petitioners filed a timley notice of appeal to the superior court of Pennsylvania in order to preserve the defendant's appellate rights.
12. The petitioners were not retained to pursue the defendant's appeal.
13. On April 9, 2009, this honorable court issues an order compeling the petitioners to file a concise statement of matters to be raised on appeal.
14. 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.
15. The petitioners respectfully request that this honorable court permit them to withdraw counsel, and to appoint counsel to represent the defendant on appeal.
16. Further, the petitioners respectfully request that this honorable court grant additional time pending the outcome of this petition, to file a concise statement of matters complained of an appeal.
Wherefore, the petitioners respectfully request that this honorable court permit them to withdraw as counsel; appoint new counsel to represent the defendant on appeal; and to grant additional time within which to file a concise statement of matters complained of an appeal.
Respectfully submitted,
Paul J. Walker, Esq. (actually signed signature)
Joe D'Andrea (no signature)
---
A hearing has been set for May 22 at 9 a.m. before PPO. Cuadra will appear via video from SCI Camp Hill.
Update @ 05/09/2009: There's also an article about this story in today's Times Leader and Citizens' Voice.
PC,
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean Harlow conned D'Andrea and Walker?
What surprises me is the request that lawyers be appointed for his appeal. I was totally unaware that indigent convicts were eligible for court-appointed appeals lawyers. What's Gladis worried about then?
ReplyDeleteHere is the link from the times leader newspaper in wilkes barre
ReplyDeletehttp://www.timesleader.com/news/Attorneys_asked_to_be_withdrawn_from_Cuadra_appeal.html
Bingo! I had a suspicion that the lawyers weren't getting paid when they filed that one page "concise statement" and that there was very little chance of being paid in the future. Walker did what was required, technically, for Harlow since he was a lawyer of record for the defense in this case.
ReplyDeleteIf there is an appeal, Harlow is going to have to have counsel appointed by the court since there is apparently no cash to pay for other lawyers, assuming that the state of Pennsylvania will appoint public defenders for an appeal.
I did a quick check on the article that Man About Town gave a link to and the claim is that the attorneys were not contracted or paid for an appeal process.
ReplyDeleteWe will just have to see what the outcome is on May 22 for attorney Walker's withdrawal request.
If the lawyers get stiffed by Harlow. Do you think they would get paid by the public defenders office??
ReplyDeleteIf the lawyers get stiffed by Harlow.
ReplyDeleteThe implication of the petition is that they were paid for the trial, but not for the appeal. I'm pretty sure, considering the circumstances, that Walker and D'Andrea got their money upfront.
Of course, I don't know that as fact.
The professional fees for the attorneys were probably paid up front as you can estimate the cost for the trial defense within reason. The incidental fees, costs of witnesses, etc., which cannot be estimated before hand, may or may not have been fully paid.
ReplyDeleteThe rather terse "concise statement" filed with the court would seem to indicate there may be some slight payment due and no hope of a future payment for appeal.
Of course this is just my supposition.
I was totally unaware that indigent convicts were eligible for court-appointed appeals lawyers.
ReplyDeleteI didn't know either, but a quick Google search indicates that PA public defenders commonly handle appeals. I don't know the details and I don't know whether the county is required to provide them.
I'm beginning to feel sorry for Harlow...everyone deserves an appeal...mistakes can be made and if there were any, they should be resolved...
ReplyDeleteI heard from a good source that, During cross exam at trial Defense Attorney D'Andrea asked Mitch Halford if he ever got a dime of the $70,000 he gave to Harlow. Mitch said no.
ReplyDeleteAttorney D'Andrea asked Mitch Halford if he ever got a dime of the $70,000 he gave to Harlow. Mitch said no.
ReplyDeleteThere must be words left out or something, because I don't know what you're saying here. Halford gave the money to Harlow, so why would expect to get any of it back? It doesn't make sense.
When Mitch was on the stand, he admitted he gave around $70,000 for Harlow. Attorney D'Andrea said that Walker or himself didn't get any of it, not one dime. So the money may have went to the old laywers, Gladis, and toward his commissary (i'm guessing). Some of the money went to Joe also. So according to that statement. The defense didn't get any of Halford's money. Do you understand that??????
ReplyDeleteDo you understand that??????
ReplyDeleteNow, it makes sense. Your original sentence didn't.
Attorney D'Andrea said that Walker or himself didn't get any of it, not one dime.
Still, it sounds like D'Andrea was testifying when he wasn't under oath, and putting his client in a less than favorable light.
Since you heard it from someone, I'll take it with a grain of salt.
It is beginning to sound like the defense, Walker and D'Andrea, got little or nothing for the defense effort in the trial.
ReplyDeleteDoes not seem logical since they were not apparently paid by the State as public defenders and I cannot see why they would take the case on speculation since there was no financial stake.
From what I understood from the old blog, the only money given to Harlow expressly for his new lawyers came from John Roecker. The $70,000 from Halford came very early on, even before Harlow was arrested if my memory of Halford's testimony serves me correctly.
ReplyDeleteSince Harlow was declared indigent when the public defenders were appointed, it would then follow that the money had all been spent at that point, God only knows on what. Of course, it MAY have been transferred to a third party, or "fallen into the wrong hands." Right Gladis?
According to Day 7 of the trial:
ReplyDelete'Since Cuadra’s arrest, Halford said he has donated more than $70,000 to Cuadra for his legal fund and other expenses.'
'Halford, who said he was in love with Cuadra, testified he gave the 27-year-old more than $70,000 for legal defense since he was imprisoned.'
My guess is that some of the money went to retain Fannick, some of it went to retain Robert Buttner, who was Harlow's appeals attorney for the Fannick dismissal, and as man about town said, I'm sure some of it went to Joe, commissary, Harlow's family (somebody had to pay for all of those days they were in PA for the trial), and god knows what else.
"16. Further, the petitioners respectfully request that this honorable court grant additional time pending the outcome of this petition, to file a concise statement of matters complained of an appeal."
ReplyDeleteWhat's odd is that they already filed this on April 30th... one has to wonder what changes they feel are needed.
Cuadra's financial and attorney situation has had me wondering for quite a long time. I brought it up during the Fannick debacle and right after the trial. It's never been resolved and probably never will be.
ReplyDeleteHalford said he gave the $70,000 AFTER the arrest, but Cuadra (and Kerekes) was given public defenders.
Then Cuadra decided to hire Fannick, and I assume Fannick expected to be paid. When PPO rejected Fannick, Cuadra went back to public defenders instead hiring a different attorney.
If Buttner was paid, you have to wonder why our boy was still eligible for public defenders.
Then our destitute prostitute hired Walker and D'Andrea. It almost had to be with money from Roecker, but that's speculation.
Knowing our subjects, I wouldn't be surprised if there was some scamming going on. You'd have to a little naive to think Cuadra wasn't capable of that.
The plea for additional time to file a consise statement of appeal in addition to the one page statement already filed has to be for a new appeal attorney's convienance. He/she may prefer some other item and/or an additional item from the already filed statement.
ReplyDeleteObviously, Walker and D'Andrea are not planning on continuing. They want OUT, and probably to be paid for thier past services.