This blog is basically an archive of the trial news, facts, and opinions related to convicted murderers Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes for their brutal slaying of Bryan Kocis in his rural Pennsylvania home. Harlow and Joe are currently serving life in prison without the possibility of parole. I will continue to update this blog for the duration of Harlow Cuadra's plea for a new trial.
( Most of the original trial content has been removed - it's in the book. )
Thursday, March 7, 2013
Harlow Cuadra's Original PCRA Filing
Here's a copy of the original PCRA that attorney Demetrius Fannick filed on Harlow Cuadra's behalf back in May 2012 (click on the pictures/pages for a larger view):
15. That Petitioner is innocent of the crimes charged in that he has always alleged that he had no knowledge of any intention to kill Mr. Kocis and that he acted under duress.
OK as I have said before this seems nonsensical on its face, but after reading the whole thing I think the "act" that he committed "under duress" is referring to the "flight from Virginia Beach," which the prosecution argued was evidence of guilt, and not the murder itself. At least that's the only interpretation I can come up with that makes any sense.
Otherwise, this all seems to boil down mainly to an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument, and not a very good one. The examples given of his trial lawyers' supposed incompetence are very minor and would definitely not have changed the outcome of the trial.
Fannick states that none of the issues brought up in this petition were argued in his appeal. Really? And why not? I remain mystified that Pennsylvania allows for a second bite of the apple after the appeal is rejected. I believe most states won't allow any further hearings unless the defendant is presenting NEW evidence not available at the time of trial.
Anyway it's all academic, I fully expect this petition will be turned down very quickly after a very short hearing.
I see I made another error. If you look at item 9 in the petition, it says that PA law dictates that an innefective-assistance-counsel argument CANNOT be raised in the appeal, but that "such issues should be raised pursuant to a PCRA petition." So that explains both why it wasn't brought up in the appeal and why he's getting what I called a second bite of the apple. This is all being done according to Hoyle, and my apologies to Mr. Fannick for suggesting otherwise.
Even though Harlow's lawyers did as well as any lawyers could with his hopeless case, the only avenue he had left after the appeal was turned down was to file this petition claiming they were incompetent, so he figured why not, I have nothing to lose. As long as his sugar-daddy, whoever that is, is willing to pony up for Fannick's services he'll waste the court's time and at least get a day-long field trip out of it.
The policy on comments is as follows: criticize the facts and opinions all you'd like, but please stay on topic; comments that contain personal attacks will be deleted without comment.
15. That Petitioner is innocent of the crimes charged in that he has always alleged that he had no knowledge of any intention to kill Mr. Kocis and that he acted under duress.
ReplyDeleteOK as I have said before this seems nonsensical on its face, but after reading the whole thing I think the "act" that he committed "under duress" is referring to the "flight from Virginia Beach," which the prosecution argued was evidence of guilt, and not the murder itself. At least that's the only interpretation I can come up with that makes any sense.
Otherwise, this all seems to boil down mainly to an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument, and not a very good one. The examples given of his trial lawyers' supposed incompetence are very minor and would definitely not have changed the outcome of the trial.
Fannick states that none of the issues brought up in this petition were argued in his appeal. Really? And why not? I remain mystified that Pennsylvania allows for a second bite of the apple after the appeal is rejected. I believe most states won't allow any further hearings unless the defendant is presenting NEW evidence not available at the time of trial.
Anyway it's all academic, I fully expect this petition will be turned down very quickly after a very short hearing.
"this all seems to boil down mainly to an ineffective-assistance-of-counsel argument, and not a very good one."
DeleteBingo!
I see I made another error. If you look at item 9 in the petition, it says that PA law dictates that an innefective-assistance-counsel argument CANNOT be raised in the appeal, but that "such issues should be raised pursuant to a PCRA petition." So that explains both why it wasn't brought up in the appeal and why he's getting what I called a second bite of the apple. This is all being done according to Hoyle, and my apologies to Mr. Fannick for suggesting otherwise.
ReplyDeleteEven though Harlow's lawyers did as well as any lawyers could with his hopeless case, the only avenue he had left after the appeal was turned down was to file this petition claiming they were incompetent, so he figured why not, I have nothing to lose. As long as his sugar-daddy, whoever that is, is willing to pony up for Fannick's services he'll waste the court's time and at least get a day-long field trip out of it.