Harlow & Joe... Part 2

It's been Five Years...

2012-01-08T19:28:00.004-05:00

Five years ago, Bryan Kocis was brutally murdered by convicted killers Harlow R. Cuadra and Joseph M. Kerekes, since that time we've witnessed hearings, trials, and then some. With the book coming out next month, and with the probability of there being little, to no new news to further report, it's time for me to say farewell to this blog.

I want to personally thank everyone that participated over the years as either a reader, and/or commenter.

You're more than welcomed to follow the book, Cobra Killer, on our Facebook Page.

Thanks again,

Peter Conway (PC)

Cuadra, H. v. DOC

2011-12-16T21:53:00.004-05:00

On November 28, 2011, convicted murderer Harlow R. Cuadra filed a 'Petition for Review" with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. It would appear that Harlow is representing himself during this request, and I'll try to update this story as soon as possible, to answer what it is that needs to be "reviewed" by the appellate court.

01/08/2012: Just a quick update on the appeal Harlow filed... appears to be nothing more than an appeal on a grievance that he had filed (Grievance DC-ADM-804). Not sure what the original grievance was, but they certainly do have plenty of time to complain about anything they want

You've got to be kidding... Harlow fans still exist?

2011-10-03T22:27:00.002-04:00

A post on our facebook page from a Harlow fan:

"Aimee Allen: But from your blog, it's almost as if you enjoy him suffering and think he got what he deserved. THAT is what I am asking you to stop doing. Have compassion. Please stop celebrating a victims pain."

My response to Aimee: "Aimee, this is PC, the blog administrator/author. While I can certainly understand your personal concerns, let's be honest. The only true victim in this case was Bryan Kocis. A jury found Harlow Cuadra guilty, and his appeals have since been denied by 2 state courts. I have never 'celebrated' Bryan's death, or the pain that his family must still endure. What I've read from the trial transcripts, doing juror interviews, etc... until the Supreme Court over-turns the verdict... yes, I think Harlow got what he deserved... he's a victim of his own greed and stupidity."

A Time that Family Moved-On?

2011-09-24T23:01:00.003-04:00

I recently checked out the MySpace profiles of convicted murder Harlow Cuadra's mother Gladis Zaldivar, older brother Jose Cuadra, and younger brother David, the latter of whom is now using the same last name as his mother. Jose looks like he's trying to be a ladies man - while David makes veiled threats about people 'fucking' with his family, meanwhile... Gladis barely makes a peep. Surprisingly - none of them appear to be on facebook... at least not publicly.

Is the era of "Free the Wrongly Accused" finally over?

Editing Underway...

2011-09-12T20:38:00.000-04:00

We continue to take steps toward the final product. Editing with the publisher and legal counsel is underway now. Won't be long until a proof copy is in the author's hands and February release is here before you know it!

Harlow turns 30 Today...

2011-08-05T23:23:00.014-04:00

Convicted murder Harlow Cuadra had a birthday today... he's now 30. Bloated and hardly a twink... Harlow Cuadra is destined to spend the rest of his life in prison (x2) for the brutal murder of Bryan Kocis, it's doubtful that he'll ever see another birthday in freedom.

What a shame really... it's amazing how money can ruin so many lives forever... just ask Joseph Kerekes... or Bryan's Family.

Murder Goes from Blog to Book...

2011-07-17T20:35:00.004-04:00

The Times-Leader reports that first-time author Peter Conway describes his true crime book that chronicles the Dallas Township murder of Bryan Kocis as a page turner.

Conway and published author Andrew E. Stoner worked together to write a 300-page book about the heinous murder in January 2007 and the coast-to-coast investigation.

http://www.timesleader.com/news/Murder_goes_from_blog_to_book_07-17-2011.html

Update @ 07/21/2001: Gay Porn Times also picks up the story...

A FLURRY OF MOTIONS...

2011-07-09T00:36:00.000-04:00

Three years ago... the long path to trial for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes was getting underway in earnest as motions were flying fast and furious.

The District Attorney’s office started off with motions requesting an independent psychiatric evaluation of both Harlow and Joe, and a request to include Justin Hensley’s previous testimony at trial. Interesting, Hensley recently showed up asking a question on the Cobra Killer Facebook page.

Attorneys for Joe Kerekes, three years ago this month, gave every indication they were headed for trail. They made their fourth request to sanction prosecutors, requested to move the trial out of Luzerne County, and to have a separate trial from Harlow Cuadra.

Team Kerekes also sought to prevent prosecutors from using any statements Joe made to coppers down in Virginia Beach upon his arrest on murder charges. They also sought to block the contents of any conversations reharcorded at a San Diego, California beach, and the contents of any evidence seized from Kerekes’ e-mail account and Virginia home. They also wanted evidence of any prior criminal history for Joe shieled from jurors.

As we now know, Team Kerekes went 0 for 7 on all seven motions filed.

It was all an exercise in motion writing anyway – Kerekes taking a guilty plea and avoiding a trial.

Harlow Cuadra’s attorneys also kept the typists and courthouse recorders busy filing separate motions to move any trial out of Luzerne County or to have an outside jury brought in because of pre-trial publicity, and to separate his case from Kerekes. Cuadra’s lawyers also sought to block photographs of the victim, Bryan Kocis, kept from the view of the jury because they could be inflammatory.

Like Kerekes, Cuadra sought to block prosecutors from using any statements Cuadra made to police because he was questioned while in custody but never informed of his rights. Moreover, they attempted to block recorded conversations of Cuadra at the beach kept out of trial because the interception violated the law and Cuadra’s rights. Finally, they attempted to block presentation of evidence seized from Cuadra’s Virginia residence and e-mail account kept out of trial because it was obtained with invalid warrants.

Cuadra won a partial victory on one count – victim photographs were limited – but suffered a devastating loss with not only the admission of transcripts from the beach where Cuadra made incriminating statements, but also transcripts of the same.

A technical motion from Cuadra to have all the charges against him thrown out because prosecutors failed to present sufficient evidence at a preliminary hearing was wishful thinking from the start – and was promptly tossed.

Pre-Order Cobra Killer Now... and Save!

2011-07-05T22:22:00.001-04:00

You know you want a copy of the book, so why not pre-order it now and save 20-32% OFF the cover price. Pre-orders can be made at:

Amazon.

So who's on First?

2011-06-07T22:51:00.019-04:00

While other websites have taken my work and used it for their own good or ill, let's not forget the fact that I was the first to post the infamous Blacks Beach and Crab Catcher Transcripts, Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' Financial Issues, pre/post Court Filings, Harlow and Joe's recent prison pics... and the list goes on... so what's next? You'll see soon! :)

I guarantee you it'll be another "first"... and sadly once again... I'm sure a few sites will take credit for something they never did. Imitation is the most serious form of flattery and I thank you... even though you won't take the time to thank me. Fact is... if it weren't for me and my blog(s), you probably wouldn't have the information in the first place.

- PC

Pennsylvania: Love It, as You’ll Never Leave It...

2011-06-06T00:23:00.006-04:00

A lot can happen in just four years – in fact, it was four years ago this month that Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes got their marching orders to take their very last steps outside the Commonwealth of Virginia. On June 27, 2007, as reported on PC’s original trial blog, an extradition order was approved by then-Virginia Gov. Tim Kane (D) to ship Harlow and Joe from the custody of Virginia, to their counterparts in Pennsylvania. Since their arrival to Pennsylvania on July 27, 2007 – Harlow and Joe have never left... and they never likely will.

Four Years Later...

2011-05-25T21:39:00.019-04:00

It's been four years since Bryan Kocis' life was snuffed out, but the men responsible for his death have continued to live. New photographs released of the killers (exclusive to this blog), Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes, reveal that prison life has not been favorable to them.

Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes Then (05/2007):

Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes Now (03/2011):

We're now on Facebook!

2011-05-09T21:31:00.003-04:00

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Cobra-Killer/144473172292011

Cuadra Loses Again...

2011-05-03T18:24:00.009-04:00

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied convicted murder Harlow Cuadra's appeal:

"AND NOW, this 3rd day of May, 2011, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED."

Cuadra sought an appeal with the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, stating then-Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr., made mistakes in rulings before and during the two-week trial in March 2009.

I'll try to have more shortly. Meanwhile, more about Harlow's failed appeal(s) can be found HERE.

Update @ 05/04/2011: Nothing more to add... the Pennsylvania Supreme Court does not issue a written opinion when they refuse to hear a case.

What's Old is New...

2011-04-26T22:05:00.003-04:00

Feel free to re-visit the original blog:

Harlow & Joe on Trial

Happy Easter! Quick Update...

2011-04-24T22:33:00.002-04:00

Currently working on book cover designs... doing author photos shortly.

We're Done... Book Deal Completed...

2011-03-06T20:30:00.009-05:00

Magnus Books to publish a nonfiction work tentatively entitled "Cobra Killer":

Cobra Killer presses the “play ” button to uncover the real world of online pornography--an industry that generates billions in revenue and makes ordinary people overnight-stars and millionaires.

For the first time, authors Conway and Stoner tell in full detail the twisted story of a pair of young, aspiring gay adult film producers whose quest for fame at any cost leads to the gruesome murder of the man who stands in their way, gay porn entrepreneur Bryan Kocis. News of the killing of the 44-year-old (stabbed 28 times, his throat slashed to near decapitation of his head) in his suburban home sends shock waves through the bucolic Pennsylvania town. Neighbors are horrified to hear about the murder but equally astonished to learn that Kocis ran a small but thriving online porn operation from his home, sometimes employing underage young men as models.

The murder investigation leads police and prosecutors to the far reaches of the country, from Virginia to New York City, to Las Vegas, and to a nude beach in San Diego where investigators facilitate an incredible clandestine suspect surveillance. The manhunt nets a former U.S. Navy veteran and a former Marine, turned male models, turned hustlers, turned porn producers, who ultimately land at the bottom of a delusional conspiracy. Twenty-six-year-old Harlow Cuadra and his 35-year-old partner and lover Joseph Kerekes are implicated and eventually convicted in the brutal January 2007 murder of Kocis. Their motive? An ill-conceived attempt to lure a rising gay porn star named Brent Corrigan away from the grips of Kocis and into their crumbling, self-built porn empire.

Cobra Killer takes readers into the sometimes alluring, sometimes dangerous and often surprising world of gay porn and the deceit, schemes, and ultimate betrayals lying underneath the fantasy.

---

Publishing dates, price, etc... will be announced shortly. If you thought the original blog was good... just wait until you read the book!

PC

We're Close...

2011-01-24T22:38:00.000-05:00

Just got off the phone with the editor/publisher... things look very promising! Hopefully we'll have a signed contract this week.

Book Announcement Update...

2010-12-15T17:13:00.001-05:00

Trial Book to be published by Magnus Books. More detailed information shortly...

Joe's Dad Buy's the Farm in September...

2010-12-14T19:21:00.002-05:00

http://www.amosfamily.com/2010/09/fred-joseph-kerekes/comment-page-1/#comment-8656

“I was so sad to learn about Uncle Fred. My kids called him Uncle “Jesus” because the first time they remember meeting him he had his Jesus hat on”…

He had the same hat on during Joe and Harlow’s trial… the guy was strange.

Harlow Tries Again...

2010-11-22T16:52:00.002-05:00

After having his appeal denied by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on October 14th, convicted murderer Harlow Cuadra has now filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Something tells me that he'll get the same answer... No!

New Book Deal Shortly...

2010-10-31T17:57:00.003-04:00

Andrew and I hope to announce a new book deal shortly.

It's all about ironing-out the 'kinks'. :)

Update @ 11/16/2010: We seem to have gotten interest from several publishers... this may take a little longer than thought. :)

Update @ 12/12/2010: An announcement will be made within the next 7 days.

Court Rejects Harlow's Appeal

2010-10-18T14:29:00.001-04:00

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the conviction and life sentence handed to Harlow Cuadra for the murder of Bryan Kocis. No additional appeals have been filed as of today.

In a five page ruling issued on Oct. 14, the Superior Court upheld Cuadra’s conviction and sentencing, stating Olszewski’s rulings before and during Cuadra’s trial were “well detailed and well-reasoned.”

“We can find no error in its factual findings and corollary legal conclusions,” the appellate court ruled on each of the issues Cuadra challenged.

Times Leader Story

Alyson Books...

2010-10-03T18:59:00.001-04:00

Apparently Alyson Books has chosen to go e-book only... well we won't.

Andrew and I are currently seeking a new publisher, and apologize for any delay this may have. Rest-assured... the book will be published.

Civil Suit Settled...

2010-08-04T20:49:00.007-04:00

The Kocis family's wrongful death suit against convicted murderer's Harlow Cuadra and Jospeh Kerekes has been settled out of court today. It's a sealed settlement, so we don't know exactly what the terms are (yet).

Check back for further updates.

Harlow Cuadra's Appeal... Something's Going On...

2010-07-18T18:16:00.007-04:00

Update @ 07/20/2010: I probably should have clarified this earlier... but... this isn't Harlow Cuadra's actual appeal that's being decided, but rather the court has received all they need, and they've appointed the three judges listed below to review the appeal and consider the merits.

-----
It would appear (and I could be wrong) that convicted murder Harlow Cuadra's appeal is now in the hands of a three-panel judge decision:

Case Processing Status: July 13, 2010 Awaiting Decision

Journal Number: J-S53014-10

Consideration Type: Submitted on Briefs-Panel

Listed/Submitted Date: July 12, 2010

Panel Composition:

The Honorable Jack A. Panella

The Honorable Jacqueline O. Shogan

The Honorable Anne E. Lazarus

When a ruling is made, I'll be sure to announce it.

Harlow Cuadra is currently serving a double-life sentence for the brutal murder of Bryan Kocis. His co-defendant Joseph Kerekes, pleaded guilty in December 2008 to second-degree murder and was sentenced to life in prison.

Kocis Civil Suit... Dates Set

2010-06-28T16:13:00.003-04:00

The Kocis family's wrongfull death suit against convicted murders Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes is scheduled for October 7 and 8 at 9:30 a.m., before Judge William Amesbury. Both Harlow and Joe will appear via video from their respective prisons.

What Happened to Melnick?

2010-06-15T18:05:00.003-04:00

On June 11, 2010... Frank P. Barletta filed an "entry of appearance" for the Luzerne County DA's office with the Superior Court of Pennsylvania, regarding convicted murder Harlow Cuadra's appeal.

While it's widely known that Barletta strictly does appeals for Luzerne County... it makes one wonder... what happened to the original prosecutor Michael Melnick, and why isn't he still handling this?

Update @ 06/27/2010: A source tells me that the reason Melnick is no longer listed as the DA, is because Frank Barletta handles higher court appeals for the Luzerne County District Attorney's Office. Jackie Musto Carroll does it that way so regular ADA's aren't jammed up with appeals and can concentrate on current caseloads, leaving Barletta to handle appeals.

Will The Delays Ever End?

2010-06-05T22:24:00.006-04:00

I feel like a broken record...

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania filed an application for an extension of time to file the brief on 04/30/2010, the Court approved the extension to 05/28/2010, and then again to 06/11/2010.

"Appellee's brief due 6/11/10. No further extensions will be granted."

We'll see... something tells me that the book will be out, before Harlow Cuadra's chance for an appeal can even be decided upon.

Update @ 06/14/2010: A quick check of the docket shows that nothing's been filed thus far.

Update @ 6/15/2010: Well it would appear that the Appellee's Brief was filed on 06/11/2010 (guess the clerk was a little slow to update)... an Entry of Appearance by D.A. Frank P. Barletta was also filed.

Harlow Cuadra's Fans?

2010-05-16T18:44:00.019-04:00

Even though Harlow Caudra has been convicted of the brutal murder of Bryan Kocis, and is currently serving two life terms in a Pennsylvania prision... he still seems to have fans. Can these folks get any more delisuional?

First we have dear old Nep... who decided to send Harlow a Valentine's message via Facebook... not sure how Harlow would be able to receive it... but I guess it's the thought that counts.

Next we have Natasha from England, who diligently recite's Harlow's letters written to her... shared on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFFMaQbFF3Q

Not once... but twice:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3BsalbNvoGU

... and if that wasn't bizzare enough, she's also started a blog:

http://fuckyeahfreeharlowcuadra.tumblr.com/

'Young teenage British girl & old Filipino man that works at Wendy's, both HEART former Gay porn actor turned murderer' -- this is an ODD world indeed!

Update @ 05/17/10 - 7:00 PM: It gets even more bizzare with 'Natasha's' latest rambling's posted 9 hours ago...

http://www.youtube.com/user/BitchinDiva#p/a/u/0/TwPzGK4bXV8

Natasha is a trip - she obviously is smitten with Harlow and with the idea that if you want to contact him, you have to contact her. Wrong... but I guess she can have her fantasy. Girls her age should be trying to get guys her age (or girls) to kiss her at a school dance, not writing to convicted porn killer murderers in American prisons. Weird. Weird. Weird.

My thanks to book co-author Andrew Stoner for helping with this story.

More Delays...

2010-04-30T14:18:00.001-04:00

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has filed an application for an extension of time to file the brief. No response from the Court yet, but I'm sure they'll grant it.

I guess it really shouldn't come as any surprise.

Barebacking Gay Porn Star Too Hot for Yale

2010-04-16T22:13:00.002-04:00

This is a story about gay porn star Brent Corrigan (Sean Lockhart) and how Yale canceled his speaking engagement.

Zzz...

2010-04-15T21:30:00.001-04:00

There's likely to be periods of quiet-time on the blog... guess we'll here more later this month.

Records Finally Filed...

2010-03-30T14:24:00.000-04:00

While they were due back on March 19, 2010... Harlow Cuadra's Brief and Reproduced Record has finally been filed... yesterday, March 29, 2010.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is expected to file their Brief by April 28, 2010.

Today's Civil Hearing...

2010-03-26T20:14:00.000-04:00

As reported on March 15, 2010... there was a hearing today, regarding the civil case that Michael Kocis filed against Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes on behalf of Bryan Kocis' estate.

Sources tell me that the hearing only lasted about 15 minutes, and that Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes appeared via video, both wearing brown prison jumpsuits with white t-shirts underneath.

Joe is now sporting a shaved head, while Harlow pretty-much still looks the same.

A bench trial for determination of what the two owe the Kocis family will be sometime after April... possibly June. The trial is expected to last two days. Joseph Kerekes and Harlow Cuadra will once again appear via video for the trial, as Joe asked that he not be transported, and Cuadra agreed.

Both indicated that they will not be obtaining counsel and will be representing themselves. Harlow stated that he has "no assets" to obtain a lawyer.

To Appeal... or Not to Appeal...

2010-03-19T20:45:00.016-04:00

... that is the question.

While this story is still somewhat preliminary...

Convicted murder Harlow Cuarda's attorney Demetrius Fannick was scheduled to file the long awaited Brief and Reproduced Record today... it would appear that this didn't happen... again.

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania specifically stated the last time it approved a request from Fannick for an extension, that "No further extensions will be granted".

If Fannick didn't file the paperwork today, will the Superior Court throw out Harlow's appeal... is Fannick planning to quit?

Guess we'll see... who knows... this could be nothing at all.

Meanwhile, both Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes have a court date next week in regards to the Civil Case brought by Micheal Kocis.

Update @ 03/22/2010: After reviewing the court's docket again today... there's still no mention of there being a filing. I'm hoping to have an 'official word' confirming this in the morning, and am also working on trying to figure out what's exactly going on.

Update @ 03/23/2010: I'm told that Fannick didn't file anything in Luzerne County, but he doesn't really have to, he can file directly with the Superior Court. Thus far... the Superior Court is still not showing a filing. So the mystery continues...

Update @ 03/24/2010: Still nothing from the Superior Court... so unless something happens tomorrow, we probably won't hear from Harlow Cuadra and/or Joseph Kerekes until Friday... and who know's when we'll hear from Fannick.

The Civil Case... Redux

2010-03-15T18:26:00.005-04:00

Sources tell me that there will be a hearing on March 26, 2010 before Judge William Amesbury, regarding the civil case Michael Kocis filed against Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes on behalf of Bryan Kocis' estate.

I'm not exactly sure what it'll be about, but I suspect that it will be to determine what payment Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes owe the Kocis family.

Michael Kocis’ suit, filed in Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas in January 2008, claimed Cuadra and Kerekes entered Bryan Kocis’ home and “jointly” or “separately” caused Bryan Kocis’ death and destroyed the home and property.

Neither responded to the suit, which led to a default judgment.

Harlow and Joe will both appear for the hearing via video.

The Book Deal is Done!

2010-03-12T15:21:00.035-05:00

The book contract is now official as all parties have signed, sealed and delivered. So without further adieu, I'm happy to announce that the book deal is with Alyson Books, a division of Here Media, Inc. Additional information will be provided in the near future.

On an ironic note... this signing happened exactly 1 year from the date of Harlow Cuadra being found guilty by a Luzerne County Jury.

No... it wasn't planned.

Meanwhile... you can also read more information about the Book and it's Authors' here.

Update @ 03/17/2010: Just wanted to give everyone a quick update that the book now appears to be released sometime between Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. We'll be doing an official post shortly.

I just got word about this from the publisher yesterday.

Apparently they had to redo the fall 2010 list in order to accommodate the production budget, which means some books that were planned for release later this year will move to the following spring, 2011.

Perhaps we can get it released in March, wouldn't that be a hoot for timing (again).

The Voice from a Former Boy Batter Employee...

2010-03-11T23:12:00.012-05:00

Here's a recent correspondence between me and Andrew Shunk (former Boy Batter model aka Mason Banks and Prosecution Witness), after a request to be 'friends' on Facebook:

Andrew Shunk March 9 at 8:39pm
so you're on of the asshole's that put people's names out to the public and wrote about them being confidential witnesses for everyone to read. You're the one who continually to call everyone out and made people's real names available and now I have to deal with wierdo stalkers! Oh thank you so much. I hope your enjoy your "enormous" wealth off of other peoples' past that they try to forget.

PC March 9 at 8:43pm
I only wrote about things that were public information. I'm certainly sorry you feel the way you do.

A "stalker" I'm not.

PC March 9 at 8:46pm
Take care, and I apologize for any offense taken.

Andrew Shunk March 9 at 8:48pm
anyone who spends their life doing nothing but following a pointless trial, calling out the gay porn stars and then thinking that they would friend you on facebook is def a stalker.

PC March 9 at 8:53pm
As I said before... I apologize if any offense was taken.

I wish you the best in your endeavours.

PC March 10 at 9:00pm
You testified at a public trial, and expected no one to ever write, talk or know about that? Get real. Your photo makes it look like you're still in the business, as it were.

Andrew Shunk March 10 at 9:08pm
you're right. i did expect old male perverts who never came out as a young adult and now expect young guys to believe their story that they will be a successful author by recording events of a gay porn murder into a book that no one is going to read, in hopes of getting them in bed. good luck. this conversation was ended yesterday...didn't realize it kept you stewing all day :-)

PC March 10 at 9:20pm
Ha... I have no interest in having you in bed. I saw you in the Best Western Genetti while I was having dinner with Renee Martin... (July a few years back). I have the trial transcripts... that's good enough.
---

I'll quote a response from someone that I shared this report with earlier:

"Most likely wants to put this part of his life behind him when it makes him look bad, but probably revels in the attention it gets him from people he likes. Love his automatic agism: Everyone but him is an old pervert who wants to bed him. I'm not old. I'm not a pervert. And I have no interest in bedding him.

In the end, what HE knows about writing and publishing a book would fill half a thimble. If he's naive and dumb enough to think this story does not have interest -- and that anyone who is interested in the story is just some mean pervert -- he needs to go home and take a nap while the big kids play."

PC Notes: It appears as if Mr. Shunk has since removed his photo and profile from Facebook.

Book Contract

2010-03-06T20:05:00.013-05:00

The book contract was mutually agreed upon earlier this week, so now we're just waiting to receive the final version from the publisher for signing. I envision this to be completed sometime next week.

More details to be announced soon... including the Title, Publisher, Pre-sale Date, Facebook Fan Page, etc...

Update @ 03/08/2010: The contract was received in today's mail for signing... we're getting closer :). Do I hear the 'pop' of some bubbly? The next step will be cover design and artwork.

The Delay Game Continues...

2010-03-03T14:29:00.041-05:00

Harlow Cuadra's paid attorney... Demetrius Fannick... filed yet another application yesterday for an extension of time to file the brief and reproduced record for Harlow's appeal. I'll update this post once the Superior Court gives an answer.

Update @ 2:53 PM: The Court once again approved Demetrius Fannick's extension request, and moved the due date to March 19, 2010. They also added the following comment: No further extensions will be granted. Looks like Mr. Fannick is actually going to have to produce something this time or else... that is unless he decides to quit.

From Blog to Book

2010-02-22T13:41:00.000-05:00

More than one reader of this blog has asked along the way: “How and why did you decide to take the blog and make it into a book?” (a formal announcement of which will be coming in the near future).

That’s a good question – and ultimately, it was the blog itself that created the impetus for a book in the first place. Way back in 2007 (I can hardly believe it’s been three years already!) shortly after I started this blog about an incredible homicide case, I heard from people all across America. One of those was author Andrew E. Stoner of Indianapolis.

Stoner, who e-mailed me and complimented the quality of the PC Blog, is the author of two previous books, including a biography on an Indiana governor for which he served as deputy press secretary, and an interesting book on murders from each of Indiana’s 92 counties. Stoner was looking around for a new book idea when he came across the PC Blog.

http://www.amazon.com/Andrew-E.-Stoner/e/B0033GBR82/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1

“I was mostly interested in this case because of PC’s blog,” Stoner said. “He has always covered this as a story of murder and a terrible crime, not just as some salacious porn report. I remember e-mailing to him and complimenting the quality of his coverage of the story, and the comprehensive nature of the information provided.”

I’m happy to report Andrew and I struck up a good friendship, talking back and forth both by e-mail and phone – conversations that included “How do you write a book?” That is a question I had and one that Andrew helped answer. To make a long story short, we decided upon combining efforts and going in on a book that would bring thoughtfulness and sense to this senseless crime (but one that included incredible twists and turns from Virginia to Pennsylvania to California).

“PC’s research on this case has been outstanding, and that means the book we have written will be the most comprehensive look anyone can get of this case,” Stoner said. “We have worked hard talking to sources, dividing up research tasks, and basically working in collaboration from the start to come up with the best final product we can.”

This has been a good partnership, I will attest. We’ve had good interaction about what angles to follow, who to interview, and both of us have been to Wilkes-Barre and Dallas, Pennsylvania so we can write from a specific point of view. Our goal was to talk to as many people that we could – many would not talk to us – but we tried nonetheless. (The good news: We scored some very key interviews with one of the convicted perpetrators, members of Bryan Kocis’ family, prosecutors and police, and many others.)

I am convinced readers of this blog – and even people who have never even heard of this case before – will be pleased and engaged as we tell the story of the murder of Bryan Kocis. (And that is the story, not just some ‘porn actors gone bad’ sort of tale.)

Another added bonus – with the announcement of the book, long-time readers of this blog will finally learn the identity of PC – I’m using my full name as co-author of the book as evidence of how proud Andrew and I are of our work.

Boy Batter Lives On?

2010-02-12T08:08:00.011-05:00

Thanks to a tip, I just discovered that something interesting appeared yesterday on the AEBN website:

http://gay.theater.aebn.net/dispatcher/movieDetail?movieId=124343&theaterId=14077

"Boy Batter gives you a close look into a late summer, where the temperature is high and the hormones are even hotter! See these naughty hotties performing their most intimate desires either with big toys, multiple hot duos, or steamy shower room three-ways. Multiple facial cum shots and complete versatility from its performers make this the most exciting video Boy Batter has produced yet! Keep a close eye on these boys ‘cause that batter might soon fly your way!"

... In the past, none of the 'Boy Batter' videos have been available, but yesterday, this film appears online.

I wonder who released it?

Nothing New Here:

Custodian Of Records Information:
Barry Taylor
2437 North Landing Road
Virginia Beach, VA
23458

... but... where the 2257's actually ever returned after the police took them? If they where, who's still paying Barry Taylor to retain them? Hmm...

Update @ 8:32 AM: ... and lo and behold... look what just showed up this morning:

http://gay.theater.aebn.net/dispatcher/movieDetail?movieId=131725&theaterId=14077

The Deadline's Coming...

2010-01-31T16:05:00.023-05:00

Assuming Demetrius Fannick is the 'great attorney' he claims to be... we should see these filed tomorrow, or on Tuesday for Harlow's appeal.

Personally... I wouldn't even hold my breath... nor should Harlow Cuadra; thinking that there's even a remote chance for an appeal is just plain stupid. Just like the crime(s) that Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes are currently convicted of committing.

Update 02/07/2010: So far nothing has been filed... no surprise really. I'll update this story when something finally is.

Update 02/08/2010: Demetrius Fannick files an application for extension of time to file the brief and reproduced record.

Update 02/12/2010: On the same day Fannick files for an extension, the court grants the order. Fannick now has until March 4, 2010 to file the brief and reproduced record.

Book Announcement Update...

2010-01-12T18:15:00.026-05:00

Things continue to go as planned... now we deal with "World English Rights"... or "World Rights"... thank God for Attorneys.

The joys of writing a book continue. :)

Update 01/13/2010: Once this 'little' issue is resolved... it's expected that the book will be available this Fall. I wish I could name the publisher, title, price, release date, etc... but that's just going to have to wait until the final contract is signed.

Update 01/19/2010: The "World Rights" issue has been resolved... and a publishing contract is expected to be signed within the next week or so. Once this is done, I'll provide more information.

Meanwhile... there hasn't been much going on in regards to Harlow's appeal.

Update 01/20/2010: Initial Contract in-hand... there's likely going to be some changes... but everything looks on schedule. Dotting you're I's and crossing your T's is a good thing.

Update 01/30/2010: An agreement is expected next week :).

Update 02/03/2010: We're just about there... the only thing that hasn't been agreed upon is the sub-title. I think we'll have that resolved by tomorrow.

Update 02/04/2010: I think we've been able to agree on the sub-title, now we get to deal with the "Errors and Ommission insurance policy". The glamorous parts of doing a book deal. :) I just keep reminding myself... "Dotting you're I's and crossing your T's is a good thing... and so are attorneys" :)

Update @ 03/17/2010: Just wanted to give everyone a quick update that the book now appears to be released sometime between Fall 2010 and Spring 2011. We'll be doing an official post shortly.

I just got word about this from the publisher yesterday.

Apparently they had to redo the fall 2010 list in order to accommodate the production budget, which means some books that were planned for release later this year will move to the following spring, 2011.

Perhaps we can get it released in March, wouldn't that be a hoot for timing (again).

Quick Update...

2010-01-08T13:38:00.000-05:00

There were court papers signed yesterday by Luzerne County judge Thomas Burke allowing more than $4,000 to be paid to an investigation agency for Joseph Kerekes' case.

So it would appear, that he will also be the judge taking over Harlow Cuadra's appeal.

The Trial Book is Soon To Be Announced!

2010-01-06T19:25:00.006-05:00

... once those pesky lawyers approve. :)

Who's the new Judge?

2010-01-04T19:21:00.005-05:00

With Judge Peter Paul Olszewski, Jr. no longer on the bench... who will handle Harlow's murder appeal?

To be honest... I have no idea who will be handling Harlow Cuadra's appeal... but... I do know that Judge Thomas Burke (Luzerne County's new President Judge) will be reassigning all of PPO's cases... so when something happens, I'll let you all know.

Meanwhile... that 'huge announcement' I mentioned earlier... look for that to be made soon... perhaps as early as this week. (These things take time).

Harlow Cuadra's Appeal... The Next Step.

2009-12-29T15:22:00.001-05:00

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania received the Trial Court's Record and Opinion on 12/24/2009.

The next scheduled events are as follows:

1. Appellant Brief Filed, due date: February 2, 2010

2. Appellant Reproduced Record Filed, due date: February 2, 2010

Looks like the ball's in Fannick's court now.

Happy Birthday Joe!

2009-12-27T16:49:00.009-05:00

Joseph Kerekes... 'aka'... Mark, Trent, etc... now sentenced to life in prison for the brutal murder of Bryan Kocis... will be celebrating his 36th birthday on December 30, 2009.

Meanwhile... Joe spent years stating he was only 24 (2002-2007)... it's amazing how age creeps up on you, isn't it? :)

... And Now We Wait...

2009-12-21T14:44:00.003-05:00

There was some activity last week in regards to Harlow's appeal... here's what happened:

1. 12/17/2009 Certificate and Transmittal of Record to Appellate Court (601 MDA 2009) Court of Common Pleas - Luzerne County

2. 12/17/2009 Notice of Transmittal of Record to Superior Court sent to DA's office and defense counsel. Copy of list of record documents transmitted to Superior Court (601 MDA 2009) mailed to DA's office and to defense counsel Demetrius Fannick, Esquire.Court of Common Pleas - Luzerne County

In accordance with Harlow Cuadra's appeal, it's required that the higher court receive any court documents related to the case, so that they can make an "educated" decision on whether to allow the appeal or not.

The second filing is just giving all attorneys involved, notice that the entire case file was sent to the Superior Court.

The Bordello is Finally Sold!

2009-12-20T15:26:00.007-05:00

After months and months of being on the market... the house at 1028 Stratem Court... the same one convicted murder's Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes once owned... has finally sold.

While the banks where asking for $365,000 back in September 2009... they wound up getting $377,000. It's apparently been "under contract" since late October.

The home was sold to Enriquez D. Veronique on 12/10/2009.

PPO Opines on Harlow's Appeal... [Part 3]

2009-12-13T17:06:00.006-05:00

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski, Jr. filed a 19-page opinion in accordance to Harlow Cuadra's appeal. I posted Part 1 on 12/07/2009 & Part 2 on 12/08/2009. Here's the final portion:

In addressing this issue we first observe that Mr. Cuadra’s co-defendant, Joseph Kerekes, appeared before the undersigned on December 8, 2008 and entered a negotiated and counseled guilty plea to various substantive offenses arising from the murder of Mr. Kocis. Specifically, Kerekes entered pleas of guilty to murder in the second degree, criminal conspiracy to commit robbery, theft, tampering with physical evidence and conspiracy to tamper with physical evidence. The alleged co-conspirator in these substantive offenses was Harlow Cuadra. An examination of the guilty plea transcript plainly reveals the question posed by the Assistant District Attorney during trial was not improper. The factual basis for Mr. Kerekes’s plea appears at pages 21-25 of the guilty plea transcript, It includes, in abbreviated form, much of the evidence produced in Mr. Cuadra’s trial. The recitation by the Commonwealth clearly suggests Mr. Kerekes was Mr. Cuadra’s accomplice in the murder, robbery and destruction of evidence. Indeed the Trial Court stated “With regard to murder of the second degree, given the recitation of the allegations, I take it that my understanding is that you are pleading guilty as an accomplice to murder of the second degree” to which Mr. Kerekes responds “Yes”. (Kerekes Guilty Plea N.T. page 26). The Trial Court then immediately asked the Commonwealth whether that was the Commonwealth’s understanding of the theory behind Mr. Kerekes’s plea to second degree murder to which the Assistant District Attorney responded “Correct”. (Kerekes Guilty Plea N.T. page 26). To suggest the Assistant District Attorney’s conduct in posing this question to the Defendant during trial is prosecutorial misconduct, given the referenced portion of the Kerekes guilty plea transcript, is patently absurd.

Similarly, Appellate Counsel’s suggestion the Commonwealth moved for his pretrial disqualification since Atty. Fannick was “particularly effective in that he had recently obtained an acquittal in a death penalty case” is not supported by a scintilla of record evidence.

Appellant next argues the Commonwealth engaged in prosecutorial misconduct by falsely representing during a suppression hearing that the arrest warrant in the instant matter was issued by the District Justice at 9:30 a.m. when the warrant was actually signed at 1:00 p.m. resulting in Defendant’s illegal arrest. This allegation of misconduct is coupled with paragraph 22 of the supplement concise statement states the Court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle since it was premised upon a finding of fact that the arrest warrant was signed by the District Justice at 9:30 a.m. ‘When that specific fact was later contradicted by the trial testimony of Commonwealth witness, Detective Daniel Yursha”.

We begin consideration of this issue by. noting a hearing on a joint motion to suppress evidence seized from the vehicle in question was conducted on December 4, 2008. Subsequently on February 17, 2009 this Court issued a nine page Memorandum containing specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. Those findings and conclusions are appended as Attachment #2. Factual Finding No. 11 concludes that the arrest warrants for Defendants Cuadra and Kerekes were issued between 9:30 and 9:45 a.m. by Magisterial District Judge Tupper referencing page 20 of the suppression transcript. The pagination reference is incorrect. Upon review of the suppression transcript we discern that Detective Matthew Childress of the Virginia Beach Police Department indicated at page 21 that he was advised on the morning of May 15 Subsequently. Pennsylvania State Police Corporal Leo D. Hannon testified the warrants in question were issued between 9:35 and 9:45 a.m. (Suppression N.T. page 109). Luzerne County Detective Lieutenant Daniel Yursha was not called during the suppression hearing. The Court’s finding of fact was therefore based upon the evidence presented. While Appellate Counsel accurately states Detective Yursha’s trial testimony is arguably inconsistent with factual finding no. 11 — this inconsistency does not establish the Suppression Court’s factual finding was in error. We have reviewed Detective Yursha’s trial testimony which indicates the arrest warrant was signed at the Magistrate’s office at 1:00 p.m. or “a little before" 1:00 p.m. (N.T. 1921, 1936). That this inconsistency exists is apparent, however, it does not establish the factual findings of the suppression court were in error. We reiterate the trial court made these findings based upon the record before it. There was simply no factual inconsistency to resolve.

Paragraph 23 of Appellant’s supplemental concise statement argues the Trial Court erred in granting the Commonwealth’s motion to disqualify present Appellate Counsel in the representation of the Defendant during trial. Here it is suggested Defendant’s right to representation embodied in. the 6 Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section IX of the Pennsylvania Constitution were disregarded by the Court. Appellate Counsel sets forth twelve separately lettered reasons in support of this position.

On March 5, 6 and 14, 2008 the undersigned conducted a hearing pursuant to the Commonwealth’s motion to disqualify Atty. Demetrius W. Fannick from representation of Mr. Cuadra. Thereafter, on March 19, 2008 we issued a Memorandum in support of its Order disqualify Atty. Fannick. The Memorandum consists of eight pages and is appended as Attachment #3. It adequately addresses this Court’s factual and legal conclusions and rationale in support of the disqualification.

Finally, Appellate Counsel states The evidence was insufficient to convict the Defendant of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, arson and robbery”. Such a bald assertion without any reference to the manner in which the evidence is lacking or what element or elements the Commonwealth failed to prove constitutes waiver. Commonweajth v. Cousar, 928 A.2d 1025, 1034 (Pa. 2007) U.S. cert. den. 128 S.C. 429. Moreover, having presided as the Trial Judge, we are struck by the temerity of Appellate Counsel’s suggestion in this regard. It was not unreasonable for the jury to conclude that the Commonwealth’s evidence, both forensic and testimonial, direct and circumstantial, of Defendant’s culpability in this heinous killing was both exhaustive and overwhelming. The Commonwealth not only conducted a comprehensive, detailed and thorough investigation it was apparent that extraordinary resources were expended in investigative efforts and the securing of witnesses and evidence for presentation at trial. Even the most feeble of reviews of the testimony and evidence produced by the eighty-six witnesses presented by the Commonwealth yields the inescapable conclusion that this Defendant was guilty of the offenses charged.

END OF OPINION

PPO Opines on Harlow's Appeal... [Part 2]

2009-12-08T19:50:00.005-05:00

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski, Jr. filed a 19-page opinion in accordance to Harlow Cuadra's appeal. I posted Part 1 yesterday... here's Part 2. The final portion (Part 3) will be posted in a few days:

We next consider Appellate Counsel’s contention that a Commonwealth witness, Joann Armaghan, was permitted to present hearsay evidence that a luminal test conducted by another person “had revealed the existence of blood on the carpet of the rental car, when there was not a proper foundation that she commonly relied on such tests in arriving at her opinions and when she merely acted as the conduit for the hearsay evidence of another expert”. Ms. Armaghan is employed as a forensic scientist supervisor with the Pennsylvania State Police. Defense Counsel stipulated to her expertise in serology. (N.T. page 1435). This witness testified, in part, regarding a carpet sample taken from a rented Nissan Xterra used by Mr. Cuadra and his co-defendant to come to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and commit the murder. The carpet sample was obtained from the drivers side front of the aforementioned vehicle and “submitted with the information that it had been previously treated with luminal. Luminal is a liquid” — at which point Defense Counsel interposed an objection. The Court overruled the objection and the witness explained that luminal was a liquid used to “possibly detect the presence of blood”. (N.T. page 1462). Ms. Armaghan tested the sample utilizing a more sensitive method — phenophtalene — which was negative. (N.T. page 1462). Over objection the witness was allowed to state the luminal test was positive for “possible blood”. The Court allowed the response indicating “An expert is permitted to rely on the opinions of others in the determination of their opinion”. (N.T. pages 1462-1463). Ms. Armaghan further explained the initial luminal test is not very sensitive and therefore the second test, which she personally conducted, was employed with a negative result. On cross-examination this expert reiterated and acknowledged the luminal test is not accurate and the more sensitive test utilized yielded a negative result for blood. (N.T. page 1468). Interestingly, the witness explained even if the phenophtalene test had been positive the result would merely be presumptive. (N.T. page 1469). The upshot of the witness’s testimony in this regard was simply that the more sensitive testing was negative for blood. This point was clearly and forcefully driven home during cross-examination. No extended discussion regarding this issue is therefore required. However, we note an expert opinion may be based upon a test performed by another and on infomiation which the expert gains from the testimony of other witnesses, and those facts need not be gleaned by the expert’s personal knowledge or observations alone. Commonwealth v. Al Hamilton Contracting, 557 A.2d 15 (Pa. Super. 1989). We also recognize that an expert may not state a conclusion which is based upon evidence that is not in the record. Commonwealth v. Triviti, 650 A.2d 104 (Pa. Super. 1994). The reason hearsay is generally inadmissible as evidence is that the competency and veracity of the declarant are not subject to examination, and the lack of an examination renders hearsay untrustworthy. See also Commonwealth v. Vandivner, 962 A.2d 1170 (Pa. 2009) (holding a trial court acted within its discretion in a first degree murder prosecution in permitting a doctor to testify to an opinion, based in part on information received from the county coroner, as to the manner of the victim’s death. The doctor there testified he customarily used information received from the coroner or other hospital records in forming an opinion regarding the cause and manner of death). We are also not unmindful of the United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Melendez-Diaz V. Massachusetts, 2009 WL 1789468 (U.S. Mass.) concluding that the confrontation clause of the 6 Amendment was violated where a trial court permitted certificates of analysis performed at a state laboratory, attesting that the substance analyzed was cocaine, and proffered at a drug trafficking trial as prima facie evidence of the substance’s composition. The majority opinion concluded confrontation is one means of assuring accurate forensic analysis. The Supreme Court noted the prospect of confrontation deters fraudulent analysis in the first place and also weeds out incompetent analysis observing that serious deficiencies have been found in the forensic evidence used in criminal trials.

Appellant next asserts the Court erred in permitting Trooper Brian Murphy, a Commonwealth witness, to present a visual aid which “amounted to an expert report that had never been provided to the Defendant”. Trooper Murphy was admitted as an expert in forensic computer analysis. The witness’s expertise was agreed to by the Defense. (N.T. page 1724). His testimony can be found at pages 1721 through 1897 of the notes of testimony. At the Commonwealth’s request the Court permitted the witness to employ a diagram which “pictorially’ represented the substance of his testimony. The exhibit eiiiployed by this witness, in the context of his testimony, in no way represented an expert report. Rather, as the Trial Judge stated, the witness would be permitted to “summarize essentially his trial testimony and to link together the various test sites that are associated with the Defendant”. (N.T. page 1834). Visual aids may be used to assist the jury in understanding evidence in appropriate cases and permission to do so is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Commonwealth v. Pelzer, 612 A.2d 407 (Pa. 1992); Commonwealth v. Persichini, 663 A2.d 699 (Pa. Super. 1995) affd. 737 A.2d 1208 (Pa. 1999).

Paragraph 21 of Appellant’s supplemental concise statement suggests the Commonwealth committed prosecutorial misconduct in five ways. We will address each of the five without reiterating the allegation of prosecutorial misconduct.

An examination of the transcript at pages 701 through 703 reveals the Assistant District Attorney was in the process of examining Trooper Michael Boone of the forensic services unit. Trooper Boone was responsible for processing the crime scene in question and identified a series of photographs including Exhibit 85-8, 86 and 87. The Court interrupted the examination, and advised the Assistant District Attorney that since the photographs had been displayed previously they would not be republished.

A defendant asserting prosecutorial misconduct has the absolute obligation to demonstrate the actions or conduct challenged had the unavoidable affect of undermining the neutrality of the jury so as to preclude or prevent the rendering of a true verdict. Commonwealth v. Kennedy, 959 A.2d 916 (Pa. 2008). Stated alternately, prosecutorial misconduct does not take place unless its unavoidable affect is to prejudice the jurors by forming in their minds a fixed bias and hostility towards the defendant. Furthermore, prosecutorial misconduct is evaluated under a harmless error standard. Commonwealth v. Holley. 945 A.2d 241 (Pa. Super. 2008). The essence of prosecutorial misconduct is that the prosecutor. a person who holds a unique position of trust in society, has abused that trust in order to prejudice and deliberately mislead the jury. Commonwealth v. Pierce, 645 A.2d 189 (Pa. 1994). the brief explanation offered by trooper Boone with regard to the aforementioned exhibits in no implicates misconduct on the part of the Commonwealth.

We have examined Appellant’s next suggestion regarding prosecutorial misconduct through the use of leading questions at pages 765, 767, 783, 1130, 1133, 1335, 1781 and 1787 and find no demonstration of pernicious behavior by the Commonwealth. That the questions were leading is obvious. That the Court sustained objections at the referenced pages is obvious. That the Defendant has failed to demonstrate prosecutorial misconduct is equally as obvious.

Appellate Counsel argues the Assistant District Attorney committed misconduct in asking Mr. cuadra if his co-defendant. Kerekes, had admitted that he (Kerekes) was Cuadra’s accomplice when the Commonwealth knew that there was never any such admission by Kerekes. Appellate Counsel suggests this occurred at page 2284 of the trial transcript.

An examination of the context of the question appears at pages 2283 through 2285 of the transcript.

[Defendant]:

Yes. Again, I’m kind of making fun of him here. He is very— sir, what I meant by aiding and abetting”, all of these accounts, the billable accounts, are under my name; but please understand that I could have come to trial and he could have really — he could have really — he could have defended himself but he waè guilty. He was guilty of murder, and Joseph Kerekes plead guilty to murder. All of these accounts were under my name; but in his conscience — he’s ashamed of it He could look no one in the face. He looked down to the floor and left as fast as possible. He is guilty of murder. He killed Bryan Kocis.

[Assistant District Attorney]:

Mr. Cuadra, now that you mention the subject, let’s follow up on that. He admitted he was your accomplice.

[Defendant]:

He admitted —

[Defense Counsel]:

Objection. Your Honor I would object to that. I don’t know that there has been any admission in court.

The Court:

Sustained. That is absolutely false and untrue, [Assistant District Attorney], and I don’t want to hear that question again.

[Assistant District Attorney]:

Your Honor --

The Court:

I don't want to hear that question again.

[Assistant District Attorney]:

I agree, Your Honor, but I have the colloguy --

The Court:

The last time I'm going to tell you. That question was most improper.

(N.T. Pages 2283-2285)

Continued to Part 3.

PPO Opines on Harlow's Appeal... [Part 1]

2009-12-07T16:33:00.016-05:00

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski, Jr. has filed a 19-page opinion in accordance to Harlow Cuadra's appeal (since it's so long, I'm going to break it down to two posts... here's part 1... I'll post part 2 tomorrow... maybe :)):

OPINION

BY: HONORABLE PETER PAUL OLSZEWSKI. JR.

1. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Subsequent to a jury trial commencing on February 24, 2009 and concluding on March 12. 2009 Defendant was found guilty of twelve separate counts including to first degree murder, conspiracy and related substantive offenses in the vicious near decapitation of Bryan Kocis and burning of his home on January 24, 2007. (N.T. pages 2549-2550). At the conclusion of the penalty phase the jury declined to impose the death penalty and the Defendant was therefore sentenced a term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. Sentence on the remaining charges was subsequently imposed on March 16. 2009. An appeal was filed on April 7, 2009 after which this Court issued an Order pursuant to Pa. R.A.P. 1925(b) on April 9, 2009. Defendant’s Trial Counsel submitted a concise statement on April 30, 2009. The Commonwealth’s request to grant an extension within which to file a response was granted on August 3, 2009. On August 5, 2009 Demetrius W. Fannick. Esq. entered his appearance on behalf of Mr. Cuadra. The undersigned granted Atty. Fannick request for an extension of time within which to file a supplemental concise statement on August 7, 2009. Thereafter on August 21. 2009 the Court received Appellant’s supplemental concise statement. The Commonwealth’s response was submitted on November 18, 2009.

II. LAW AND DISCUSSION

The concise statement filed on April 30, 2009 consists of five allegations of error all of which were considered and determined prior to trial. On September 8, 2008 this Court issued an Order and accompanying Memorandum, consisting of forty pages appended as Attachment #1, disposing of all issues raised in Defendant’s Omnibus Pretrial Motion. Appellant’s concise statement suggests the Court erred in refusing to suppress electronically recorded statements and conversations on April 27 and April 28, 2007 at the Crab Catcher Restaurant in La Hoya, California and Black’s Beach in San Diego, California respectively. The admissibility of these statements is discussed at length in pages 6 through 13 and 14 through 20 of the aforementioned Memorandum. There, the Trial Court sets forth extensive findings of fact and conclusions of law which will not be repeated in this Opinion.

_____________________________________________________________________________________
1. Pretrial litigation granting the Commonwealth’s request to preclude Atty. Fannick from representing Mr. Cuadra, which is one of the allegations of error in the instant appeal, apparently does not apply to or affect Any. Fannick’s ability to presently represent the Defendant. It is the Court’s understanding the Commonwealth has voiced no objection or apposition to Atty. Fannick’s representation of Mr. Cuadra during the pendency of the appeal.
___________________________________________________________________________________

Trial Counsel’s third allegation of error indicates the Trial Court erred in failing to suppress evidence seized from Defendant’s residence at 1028 Stratem Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia. The identification of and admissibility of this evidence, seized pursuant to a search warranted executed on February 10, 2007 is similarly discussed in the aforementioned appended Memorandum at pages 25 through 36 and will notbe repeated herein.

Trial Counsel next suggests the Court erred in denying Defendant’s motion to suppress physical evidence seized from Defendant’s e-mail accounts. The procedural and substantive posture of Defendant’s pretrial position and the Court’s discussion of this issue is set forth at pages 36 through 38 of the appended Memorandum.

Trial Counsel’s fifth allegation of error simply states “The Trial Court erred in allowing gruesome photographs into evidence which served no purpose”. This statement not only fails to identify the complained of photographs or a substantive basis for error other than employing the word “gruesome” it is belied by the Trial Court’s approach regarding the Commonwealth’s use of photographs in the instant matter. The previously referenced Memorandum discusses at pages 1 and 2 the admissibility of photographs in general. It next references the July 8, 2008 motions hearing wherein the trial Judge viewed all of the photographs objected to by Defense Counsel. Employing the appropriate standard the Trial Judge painstakingly viewed and ruled upon the admissibility of each of the photographs opposed by the Defense. We refer the reader to the July 8, 2008 transcript at pages 11 through 43 for the Court’s analysis.

Additionally, the Trial Judge instructed the jury regarding appropriate consideration of photographs. (N.T. page 2488).

Appellate Counsel’s supplemental concise statement filed on August 21, 2009 consists of eight pages the first eighteen paragraphs of which essentially recite the procedural history of the instant mailer.

Paragraph 19 simply reiterates four of the five allegations of error raised by Defendant’s Trial Counsel and previously discussed in this Opinion.

Paragraph 20 of the supplemental concise statement posits four additional trial errors.

Appellate Counsel suggests the Court erred when it refused to grant a cautionary instruction regarding the transcript of the Black’s Beach intercept — Commonwealth Exhibit 211. It is argued the Court should have advised the jury the transcript was merely a guide and “that there was a question as to the actual words used on the tape”.

The trial context of the alleged error, not set forth in Appellant’s submission, appears at pages 1039 through 1042 of the trial transcript.

[Defense Counsel]:

Your Honor, the Defense has certain issues with this evidence and has opposition to it being admitted on its face
_____________________________________________________________________________________
2. No reference is made to an exhibit number or page in the transcript where the complained of photograph or photographs appear.

3. Commonwealth’s Exhibit 212 was the actual tape of the recorded conversation and references to it can be found at pages 530, 531, 1043, 1044, 1045, 1046, 1048 and 1118 of the trial transcript. Commonwealth’s Exhibit 211 whIch purports to be the transcript of the tape is referenced at pages 1038, 1041, 1042 1045. 1057, 1905 and 2291 of the trial transcript. When the Commonwealth attempted to introduce the Black’s Beach transcript through a witness who participated in the conversation, Grant Roy, Defense Counsel objected. (NT. page 1039).
_____________________________________________________________________________________

value without —we need an — we’re asking for the Court to give an instruction.

There is — we have no opposition to it being admitted as a guide: that there was some differences of opinion that we have of what actually some words are in the transcript.

We would ask that the Court given an instruction to the Jury. It is their understanding to use this as a guide; and it is their understanding 0 the tape that should control because we, Paul and I, have an — have some objections to what some of the words actually are.

I’ve had some conversations with the District Attorney about some of its content, that they actually cleared some issues up that were mistakes in it; but there are some things that we can’t agree on, so I — I have an opposition to this being used as evidence of the exact replica of the tape but ask that it be used as a guide and that the Court give an instruction for that.

The Court:

I decline. How do I know what it is? If you want to make an objection to the authenticity or the accuracy of the transcript, you certainly have the right to make that objection and you could ask that I admit it subject to your objections; but as far as instructing the Jury to use it as a guide. I am not going to do that.

[Defense Counsel]:

For the record, then. I would note that I have an objection. I’ll note those objections, and I’m fine with that.

The Court:

So out of academic curiosity, how are you going to challenge or make those discrepancies known?

[Defense Counsel]:

I’d have to cross-examine the witness on that. I have to have those replayed so the Jury can hear it.

The Court:

You plan to do that?

[Defense Counsel]:

I do, sir.

The Court:

Okay. That’s fine.

[Assistant District Attorney]:

That’s fine Judge.

The Court:

So Commonwealth’s Exhibit 211, which is the transcript of the Blacks Beach intercept, is admitted subject to Defense Counsel challenging the accuracy of certain parts of the transcript.

[Defense Counsel]:

That’s fair, Your Honor. Thank you.

The Court:

And it's not a challenge to the accuracy of the recording. It’s a challenge to the accuracy of the transcript of that recording.

[Defense Counsel]:

That’s correct. The tape speaks for itself.

(N.T. pages 1039-1041)

The Exhibit was subsequently admitted at page 1058 of the transcript with the Trial Court noting the previously voiced objection.

In considering this issue we initially recognize, as is suggested by the Commonwealth in it response, Commonwealth witness Grant Roy conceded a reference In the transcript to ‘We” Was actually ‘ referring solely to Mr. Cuadra’s original co-defendant, Mr. Kerekes, as the person who did recogrdzance work. (N.T. pages 118, 119).

Furthermore, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has con&dered the question of whether a trial court abused its discretion in permitting the jury to review transcripts of tapes during the course of the trial, in conjunction with playing of the tapes, and has concluded that were the accuracy of the tapes has not been challenged the procedure is proper. Commonwealth v. Bango. 685 A.2d 564, 565 n.2 (Pa. Super. 1996) citing Commonweaith v. Rodriguez 548 A.2d 1211 (Pa. 1988) and Commonwealth v. Statler, 431 A.2d 992 (Pa. 1981). It is important to note the jurors in the instant matter were provided with headsets which allowed thEm to hear the words used on the tape. Appellant fails to reference any specific inaccuracy or portion of the tape which may have implicated a cautionary instruction. Additionally we find the claim waived since no portion of the jury charge nor omission may be assigned as error unless specific objections are made thereto before the jury retires to deliberate. Pa. R. Crim. P. 647(B). The mere submission and subsequent denial of proposed points for charge that are inconsistent with or omitted from instructions actually given does not suffice to preserve an issue. absent a specific objection or exception to the charge. Commonwealth v. Marques, 980 A.2d 145 (Pa. Super. 2009). We have reviewed the charge and simply note no objections or exceptions were uttered by the Commonwealth or Defense. (N.T. page 2542). Furthermore the issue of a cautionary instruction concerning the transcript was not raised during a charging conference prior to the Court’s instructions. (N.T. pages 2358-2400).

Appellate Counsel next complains the Court erred in admitting Commonwealth Exhibit 163 — a video of Defendant Cuadra lifting weights at the Big House Gym in Virginia Beach, Virginia sometime between September, 2006 and February 10, 2007. The exhibit was introduced through the business’ owner, Lance Treadway. A sidebar conference was conducted prior to the exhibit’s admission where the Commonwealth represented the video demonstrated the Defendant’s strength “with which to commit this crime of murder, that he is a powerfully built young man. It’s him lifting weights, but it shows his power and strength”. (N.T. page 1410). After argument the Trial Court ruled if the video could be related to Defendant’s strength at or near the time of the homicide it would be admitted. The Commonwealth then asked several prefatory questions of the witness including whether the video fairly and accurately depicted the Defendant’s physique and his workout ability in January of 2007 after which the Court permitted the video to be reviewed by the jury. (N.T. pages 1415-1417). This exhibit was not only relevant to explain and corroborate the testimony of Mr. Treadway it was, as indicated by the Trial Judge, a representation of Defendant’s strength at or near the time of the homicide. It demonstrated his ability to inflict the injuries suffered by Mr. Kocis. Furthermore it is well settled that the decision to admit or exclude evidence is vested to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned on appeal absent an abuse of that discretion. Relevant evidence is any evidence that tends to make a fact at issue more or less probable, and the relevance of a given place of evidence is prerequisite to its admissibility. Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 880 A.2d 608 (Pa. 2005).

Continued to Part 2.

Huge Announcement Coming Soon...

2009-11-29T18:18:00.004-05:00

...So Stay Tuned...

Trial Transcript Snippets... Justin Hensley

2009-11-29T17:44:00.014-05:00

Michael Melnick: Are you familiar with Boisrus?

Justin Hensley: Yes, sir.

Michael Melnick: What's that?

Justin Hensley: That was the male escort company that I worked for under them.

Michael Melnick: Who was involved in that, both of them?

Justin Hensley: Yes, sir. Mr. Kerekes pretty much was the boss of it who mostly answered the phone and set up everything; but he, occasionally, went on, what we would call, calls, in-calls, out-calls with myself; and Mr. Cuadra pretty much did the escorting full time.

Michael Melnick: What's the in-call?

Justin Hensley: In-call is when they come to your location where you host it. If they can't host somewhere, they come to you at your facility; or an out-call is when you go to them mostly at a residence or a hotel, something of that sort.

DA responds to Cuadra's Concise Statement of Appeal

2009-11-18T16:13:00.027-05:00

Back on August 21, 2009... convicted murder Harlow Cuadra's attorney Demetrius Fannick filed a Supplemental Concise Statement of Appeal, claiming that numerous errors were made during the trial. Today... the DA's office filed their response.

COMMONWEALTH’S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S CONCISE STATEMENT OF ERRORS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(B)

TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGES OF SAID COURT:

The Commonweatlh of Pennsylvania, by and through its attorneys, JACQUELINE MUSTO CARROLL, District Attontey of Luzeme County, and FRANK P. BARLETTA, Assistant District Attorney Of Luzerne County, provides a response to the Defendant’s concise statement of errors matters of on appeal as follows:

1. Among other claims, the Defendant argues that the Commonwealth committed prosecutors misconduct by publishing autopsy photographs to the jury a second time despite a pre-trial order that the photographs only be published once (Defendant’s Supplemental Concise Statement, paragraph 21a). Decisions regarding the admissibility of photographs are committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be reversed absent a showing that the trial court abused its discretion. Commonwealth v. Hernadez 590 A.2d 329 (Pa, Super. 1991), In determining the admissibility of photographic evidence, the trial court first must determine whether the pictures are inflammatory. If they are not inflammatory, they are admissible, provided that they are relevant and can assist the jury in understanding the facts. Even if the photographs are inflammatory, they are admissible if their evidentiary value clearly outweighs the likelihood that they will inflame the passions of the jurors.

The Defendant has waived this claim by failing to object at the relevant time. The Defendant challenges the presentation to the jury of certain photographs during the testimony of Pennsylvania State Trooper Michael Boone. The Defendant did not object; instead, this Court itself sua sponte interrupted the presentation of the testimony for a sidebar discussion, at which time this Court expressed its disapproval of the repeated presentation of these photographs and told the assistant district attorney to stop the presentation (N.T. Trial, pages 702-703). Thus, because the Defendant did not object to the presentation of this evidence. he has waived any challenge to it on appeal. Commonwealth vs. Nunn 947 A.2d 756,762 (Pa. Super. 2008).

Even if this claim has not been waived, the Defendant has not shown prosecutorial misconduct. The jury had previously been shown the potentially objectionable photographs during the testimony of a forensic pathologist. (N.T. Trial, page 153), The Comnionwealth showed the slides a second time during Boone’s testimony in an attempt to have Boone authenticate them. The fact that the jury was shown the same photographs a second time is not inherently likely to cause prejudice to the
Defendant or make it more likely that the Defendant would be convicted.

The courts recognize principally two types of prosecutorial misconduct. First, there is the prosecutorial misconduct which is designed to provoke a mistrial in order to secure a second, perhaps more favorable, opportunity to convict the defendant. Second there is prosecutorial misconduct undertaken in bad faith to prejudice or harass the defendant. Commonwealth v. Miele 446 A.2d 298, 300 (Pa. Super. 1982), The presentation of evidence in this case does not fall within either of these definitions. In no way can the conduct of the prosecutors in this case be construed as improper activities designed to cause a mistrial or undertaken in bad faith, Nor could the second presentation of this evidence likely have contributed to the verdict. As any error could not have contributed to the verdict, it is harmless. The Defendant is not entitled to any relief on this basis.

2. The Defendant challenges this Court’s conduct regarding the admission into evidence of the transcript of an intercepted conversation at Black’s Beach. There appears to be no authority requiring this Court to give a cautionary instruction under these circumstances. In the absence of any precedent requiring a cautionary instruction for the consideration by the jury of the transcripts, there are no grounds for fmding that this Court erred by not giving such an instructon.

A trial court has broad discretion in phrasing its jury instructions and can choose its own wording as long as the law is clearly, adequately, and accurately presented to the jury for its consideration. Commonwealth v. Myers 722 A.2d 1074, 1076 (Pa. Super. 1998). This Court properly instructed the jury regarding its duty to determine which evidence to accept. A trier of fact, when passing upon the credibility of witnesses and the weight of the evidence, is free to believe all, part, or none of the evidence presented. Commonwealth v. George 705 A.2d 916, 918 (Pa. Super. 1998). This Court properly instructed the jury to this effect, stating, “This means that you must judge the truthfulness and the accuracy of each witness’s testimony and decide whether you believe all of it, part of it, or none of it.” (N.T. Trial page 2483). Thus, the jury was fully informed that it had the discretion to reject any parts of the transcript that it believed conflicted with what was actually on the tape. No further instruction was required.

Furthermore, the Defendant was not prejudiced by the absence of a cautionary instruction. The lack of prejudice is particularly apparent considering the cross-examination conducted by defense counsel regarding the accuracy of the Black’s Beach transcript. The Defendant disputed the accuracy of the transcript regarding the Defendant’s statement regarding someone who “did some recon work." The transcript stated that “we”, referring to the Defendant and Co-Defendant, Joseph Kerekes, did the work. After cross-exaninatjon by the Defendant, however, the witness, Grant Roy, admitted that the tape more probably indicated that “he,” referring solely to Kerekes, is the one who allegedly did the recon work. (N.T. Trial, pages 1118-1119). Defense counsel’s elicitation of this testimony from Roy succeeded in getting before the jury the defense theory that it was solely Kerekes, and not the Defendant, who committed this crime. As the jury was made aware of the defense theory through cross-examination, any potential inaccuracy in the transcript on this point was cured, and the cautionary instruction requested by the Defendant was rendered unnecessary. Therefore, even if the Defendant could somehow show as required, any error in failing to give this cautionary instruction was rendered harmless. The Defendant is not entitled to any relief on this point.

3. For the remainder of the issues that the Defendant raises in his Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal, the Commonwealth relies on arguments that it previously made to this Court in pre-trial motions and at trial; therefore, no further response to the Concise Statement will be provided.

Trial Transcript Snippets... Robert Wagner

2009-11-16T17:56:00.013-05:00

Cross Examination by Harlow Cuadra's attorney Paul Walker:

Paul Walker: Mr. Wagner, my name is Paul Walker. I have some questions for you. Okay?

Robert Wagner: Yes.

Paul Walker: The circumstances under which you met him were what, that he was looking for a model?

Robert Wagner: Possible model, yeah.

Paul Walker: He had advertised that in some newspaper or magazine? Do you know where that was?

Robert Wagner: I don't remember. I might have just went to his website.

Paul Walker: So you may have gone to his website in order to determine that he needed a model in the Northeastern Pennsylvania Area?

Robert Wagner: Yeah.

Paul Walker: And then thereafter, is that the method by which he advertised? He would put websites or allow people to submit an application on his website?

Robert Wagner: Yes.

Paul Walker: You think that's what you did?

Robert Wagner: I think so. That was eight years ago, nine years ago.

PPO Gets the Boot...

2009-11-04T07:18:00.007-05:00

Unable to erase the taint of the corruption scandal and a photo of himself posing with a drug dealer, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. was resoundingly defeated in his bid for re-election to a second, 10-year term, receiving 33,800 “no” votes compared to 27,139 “yes” votes, according to unofficial results in Tuesday’s general election.

Read more from the Times Leader.

More Trial Transcript Snippets: Examination by the Court

2009-11-03T17:16:00.016-05:00

PPO: I want to direct your attention to when you were in the home with Mr. Kocis.

Harlow Cuadra: Yes, sir. Yes, your Honor.

PPO: You heard a knock on the door and Mr. Kocis went to answer the door.

Harlow Cuadra: Yes, your Honor.

PPO: He opened the door a little bit and then Mr. Kerekes burst in?

Harlow Cuadra: Yes. Yes, your Honor.

PPO: Did Mr. Kerekes have anything with him when he came into the home?

Harlow Cuadra: No. When I saw him reach in for the knife and it was not that -- it was not the big one. It was that small one that --

PPO: My question was, was he carrying anything with him?

Harlow Cuadra: Not in his hands, sir. Not in his hands, your Honor.

PPO: After Mr. Kocis was killed and you went out to the Xterra--

Harlow Cuadra: Yes, your Honor.

PPO: -- did Mr. Kerekes come out to the Xterra and then return to the house to start the fire?

Harlow Cuadra: Now I know that he returned to the home to start the fire; but when he returned to the home, it was to get another arm full of electronics. It was a total of three lap -- computer towers that I phsically myself saw.

PPO: My question is, when he came out to the Xterra, did he take anything back into the home with him?

Harlow Cuadra: I did not notice that, your Honor. I did not.

[ Note: PPO is Judge Peter Paul Olszewski ]

More Trial Trancript Snippets: Grant Roy

2009-10-30T17:41:00.011-04:00

Michael Melnick: Mr. Roy, can you describe to the Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury approximately when you started getting involved in the adult entertainment business?

Grant Roy: It was approximately August, 2005.

Michael Melnick: And can you describe how you started out in the business?

Grant Roy: With my then roommate, Sean Lockhart. He had done business with Bryan, and I had proposed to him the idea of possibly starting a company at some point later in the future to showcase his videos and assist him with his profession.

Michael Melnick: Do you know Sean Lockhart?

Grant Roy: Yes, I do.

Michael Melnick: How long have you known Mr. Lockhart?

Grant Roy: Since November, 2004.

Michael Melnick: How did you meet Mr. Lockhart?

Grant Roy: He needed a place to live, and I offered him a room for rent.

Michael Melnick: Was that your current address?

Grant Roy: Yes it was.

Michael Melnick: Is that a suburb of San Diego?

Grant Roy: Yes it is.

Michael Melnick: Where you live at?

Grant Roy: Yes it is.

Michael Melnick: Did he take you up on the offer?

Grant Roy: Yes, he did.

Under Contract...

2009-10-29T16:59:00.023-04:00

According to the real estate website William E. Wood and Associates... Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' former house in currently "Under Contract".

The asking price was $365,000, so it'll be interesting to see what the final amount will be... assuming the sale actually happens.

Perhaps this is one housing saga that may finally come to a close.

Update @ 11/02/2009: In the event anyone's interested... the current owner is listed as:

Owner Address: 3476 STATEVIEW BLVD., FORT MILL SC 29715-7203
Transfer Date: 7/13/2009
Document#: 20090713000800730
(Source: Real Estate Assessment Search)

It's an address for a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage office. Wells Fargo Bank was also the original mortgage holder.

No New News...

2009-10-21T17:02:00.008-04:00

There really hasn't been much going on as of late... things will likely stay slow for a while. Joe's apparently still enjoying prison-life, and Harlow's continuing with his appeal.

Rumor has it that there may be a book coming out shortly... who knows? :)

More Trial Testimony Revealed...

2009-10-10T17:39:00.013-04:00

Michael Melnick: Do you know Grant Roy?

Sean Lockhart: Yes I do.

Michael Melnick: Who is Grant Roy?

Sean Lockhart: Grant Roy is my business partner of two, maybe three years.

Michael Melnick: Where did you meet Grant Roy?

Sean Lockhart: We were roomates. I met him through Lee Bergeron, and all three of us at some point became business partners in a joint venture.

Michael Melnick: What was the name of that joint venture?

Sean Lockhart: LSG Media.

Michael Melnick: What does the L and the S and the G mean?

Sean Lockhart: Lee, Sean and Grant.

Michael Melnick: Do you know if that was a partnership or a corporation?

Sean Lockhart: It was a limited liability company.

Michael Melnick: Who is the primary shareholder?

Sean Lockhart: Lee Bergeron had control of the company with 51 percent.

Now You See It... Now You Don't?

2009-10-07T21:29:00.018-04:00

Convicted murders' Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' infamous house was sold for $573,434.00 at foreclosure, then re-listed for $415,000.00. Shortly thereafter the price was reduced to $399,000.00 and then to $365,000.00. (It's been hard to keep up).

The latest REIN listing is no longer valid, and reality company Long & Foster is now reporting: "No property detail found. The property is no longer active."

Did it finally sell, or was it taken off the market?

I guess we'll find out soon. :)

Update 10/09/09: There's been no legal changes mentioned on the Virginia Beach Land Records Site... nor has the house been re-listed on REIN. Looks like we're looking at a pulled listing.

More Transcript Fodder...

2009-09-23T19:38:00.009-04:00

Michael Melnick: Now in this version of what happened, Mr. Cuadra, now Mr. Kocis is on the phone; is that correct?

Harlow Cuadra: Yes, sir.

Michael Melnick: And, in fact, he answered the phone; is that correct?

Harlow Cuadra: Yes, sir.

Michael Melnick: Now --

Harlow Cuadra: Well, that's what it says there. That is not what really happened.

Michael Melnick: Well, that is what you said, isn't it?

Harlow Cuadra: Sir, yes. He also had his hand on my penis. He answered the phone and was able to get the door at the same time. It's ridiculous. I was under a lot of stress. I was rambling and bumbling to make Joseph happy; but that is what is said there.

Michael Melnick: Okay. And that's another version of what happened?

Harlow Cuadra: Yes, all in the same conversation. It really shows how accurate it is, doesn't it?

Michael Melnick: Okay. And would you agree with me that it would be inconsistent to be answering the phone, that he's dragging you by the groin to go answer the doorbell? That would be pretty hard to do?

Source: Trial Transcript Page 2293-2294

Ahh... The Transcripts.

2009-09-21T19:23:00.017-04:00

It's quite interesting to see the exchange between Michael Melnick and Harlow Cuadra... here's a small sample:

Melnick: Well you saw -- were you with Mr. Kerekes or were you not at Walmart?

Harlow: I was not.

Melnick: You never went into Walmart?

Harlow: No, sir. I went in a Wegman's type grocery store.

Melnick: And so Ms. Martin -- Mrs. Martin got it wrong, she indicated --

Harlow: She was not clear herself, sir. She says, I believe, I believe or I think I remember, something like that. She was not exactly clear on that.

Melnick: Well, with respect to the the accelerant, Mr. Cuadra, you saw lighter fluid; is that correct?

Harlow: Yes.

Price Reduced... Again...

2009-09-17T16:31:00.010-04:00

You guessed it... convicted murders' Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' former house is still for sale, and now the asking price has been reduced again: $365,000.00

After selling for $573,434.00 at foreclosure, it was then re-listed for $415,000.00, shortly thereafter the price was reduced to $399,000.00.

At this rate, the banks may never get rid of this burden... they've already lost a bundle.

Recession Hit's Prison?

2009-09-14T14:50:00.011-04:00

Joseph Kerekes' last payment of $34.08 on 08/18/2009 brought his total payment to $97.46 ... another payment was just made on 09/11/2009... the amount this time?

A whopping 0.27 cents.

That brings Joe's total payment(s) to $97.73. Perhaps work is scarce in prison too.

So far... no new payments from Harlow Cuadra.

More Orders...

2009-09-01T17:22:00.008-04:00

There was an order filed today regarding Joseph Kerekes' attorney John Pike asking that Krayer Detective Services be paid $242.80 for work where they interviewed Joe's father Fred Kerekes, and also for a conference with attorney Mark Bufalino.

I'll have more information in the morning, and will update this post accordingly.

Update @ 09/02/2009: Two invoices were submitted and approved by PPO:

1. Interview Fred Kerekes, attend Court Hearing on 02/20/2008: $140.00, plus $17.20 for mileage.
2. Conference with Atty. Mark Buffalino on 02/19/2008 - 2 hrs. @ $40.00 per hr.: $80.00, plus $5.60 for mileage.

Both invoices are dated 02/27/2008.

Payments Made... at a Snail's Pace.

2009-08-29T18:14:00.027-04:00

Not only where Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes in debt before they were convicted... but after Joe's guilty plea and Harlow being found guilty... both racked up some additional 'monies owed'. Thus far they're both making payments... albeit in increments that will likely take years (perhaps a life time or two) to pay.

According to court documents filed... Joseph Kerekes' last payment of $34.08 on 08/18/2009 now brings his total payment(s) to $97.46. Harlow Cuadra hasn't been as generous... with the exception of what was paid for pre-filing fees ($50.00)... Harlow's only given $24.25 since his incarceration.

Since Harlow and Joe still owe thousands to the court and family of Bryan Kocis... it certainly looks like it'll take a while before either receives a 'paid in full'... or will it?

Harlow's Supplemental Concise Statement

2009-08-24T18:00:00.012-04:00

DEFENDANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL CONCISE STATEMENT
PURSUANT TO Pa.R.A.P. 1925(B)

AND NOW, comes the Defendant, by and through his counsel, Demetrius W. Fannick, Esquire and makes the following statement of issues raised on appeal under Pa.R.C.P. 1925(b).

1. The Defendant is Harlow Raymond Cuadra.

2. On May 15, 2007, the Defendant and his co-defendant Joseph Kerekes were arrested and charged with Criminal Homicide, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501, Criminal Conspiracy to Commit Criminal Homicide, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 2501, Arson, 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 3301 and other offenses.

3. A preliminary hearing was held on August 23, 2007, and most of the charges, including the criminal homicide charges were bound over for trial in the Court of Common Pleas.

4. Defendant was originally represented by the Public Defenders Office

5. The Public Defender’s Office filed a Motion for Appointment of Conflict Counsel for the Defendant, which was denied by Judge Mark A. Ciavarella.

6. On November 21, 2007, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Disqualify the Public Defenders Office from representing the Defendant.

7. On December 3, 2007, the Public Defenders Office filed Pre-Trial Motions on behalf of the Defendant

8. On January 28, 2008, undersigned counsel filed his entry of appearance on behalf of Harlow Cuadra.

9. On February 12, 2008, the Commonwealth filed a Motion to Disqualify undersigned counsel from representing Defendant in this case.

10. A hearing on the Commonwealth’s Motion was held on March 14, 2008.

11. On March 19, 2008, the Honorable Judge Olszewski granted the Commonwealth’s Motion to Disqualify undersigned counsel from representing the Defendant.

12. Defendant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Superior Court and a Motion to Permit Interlocutory Appeal of the disqualification of his counsel of choice.

13. Defendant’s Motion to Permit Interlocutory Appeal was denied by Judge Olszewski on April 30, 2008.

14. Additional Pre-Trial Motions were filed by the Public Defender’s Office by Attorney Thomas Cometa on May 16, 2008.

15. On July 15, 2008, the Superior Court granted the Commonwealth’s Motion to Quash the Defendant’s appeal of the grant of the Commonwealth’s Motion to Disqualify undersigned counsel as an Interlocutory Order.

16. That Trial commenced on February 24, 2004 and Defendant was represented at trial by Paul Walker. Esquire and Joseph D’Andrea, Esquire.

17. That on March 12, 2009, the Defendant was convicted of all charges.

18. That on March 16,2009, following a penalty hearing, the Defendant was sentenced to life in prison.

19. That the Suppression Court erred in denying the Defendant’s Suppression Motions and allowing the following testimony to be admitted into evidence:

a. The electronically recorded conversation at Black’s Beach when the interception of said conversation violated Pennsylvania law regarding interception of conversations. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5721.1

b. The electronically recorded conversation at Crab Catchers Restaurant when the interception of said conversation violated Pennsylvania law regarding interception of conversations. 18 Pa.C.S.A. § 5721.1

c. The evidence seized from 1028 Stratem Court, Virginia Beach on February 10, 2007.

d. The evidence seized from Defendant’s e-mail accounts.

20. That the Trial Court committed the following errors at trial:

a. With regard to Commonwealth Exhibit 211, the transcript of the Black Beach intercept, in refusing to either grant a cautionary instruction that the transcript was a guide and that there was a question as to the actual words used on the tape, or in failing to sustain Defendant’s objection to the transcript as misleading and incorrect.

b. In admitting Commonwealth Exhibit 163, a video of the Defendant working out over objection of defense counsel.

c. In allowing a Commonwealth witness to present the hearsay evidence that a luminal test conducted by another person had revealed the existence of blood on the carpet of the rental car, when there was not a proper foundation that the witness commonly relied on such tests in arriving at his/her opinions and when the witness merely acted as a conduit for the hearsay evidence of another expert .

d. In allowing the Commonwealth to present a surprise visual aid of Commonwealth witness Trooper Brian Murphy, when said visual aid amounted to an expert report that had never been provided to the Defendant.

21. That the Commonwealth committed prosecutorial misconduct in the following ways:

a. Publishing autopsy photographs to the jury a second time in contravention to the Trial Court’s pre-trial order that the photographs only be published once.

b. In constantly asking leading questions of the Commonwealth witnesses despite admonishments by the Court not to ask leading questions.

c. In asking the Defendant if his co-defendant, Kerekes had admitted that he was Mr. Cuadra’s accomplice when the Commonwealth knew that there was never any such admission by Mr. Kerekes.

d. In improperly seeking to disqualify Demetrius Fannick, Esquire, as a tactical move to remove him because he was particularly effective in that he had recently obtained an acquittal in a death penalty case, thus depriving the Defendant of the counsel of his choosing.

e. In testifying falsely at suppression hearing that the Arrest Warrant was issued by Magistrate Tupper at 9:30 am. when the warrant was signed at 1:00 p.m., resulting in the illegal arrest of the Defendant and seizure of items from Defendant Kerekes vehicle.

22. The Suppression Court’s Ruling denying the defense Motion to Suppress the evidence seized from the defendant’s automobile at the time of their arrest was incorrect as it was premised upon a finding of fact that the Arrest Warrant for the defendant was signed by Magisterial District Justice Tupper at 9:30 a.m. (prior to the arrest of the defendant) when that specific fact was later contradicted by the trial testimony of Commonwealth witness, Detective Daniel Yursha.

23. That the Trial Court erred violating the Defendant’s rights under the Pennsylvania and United States Constitutions in granting the Commonwealth’s Motion to Disqualify undersigned counsel in representation of Defendant Cuadra in that:

a. The defendant has a right under the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania Constitution. Article 1, Section 9 to counsel of his choice;

b. The Commonwealth did not meet its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that confidential information was given by Defendant Kerekes to Attorney Fannick;

c. Commonwealth did not meet its burden of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that there was any real, as opposed to speculative conflict of interest which would affect either Mr. Cuadra or Mr. Kerekes’ rights to effective representation of counsel;

d. That there ultimately turned out to be no conflicts in that Defendant Kerekes did not testify at Mr. Cuadra’s trial, but refused to answer questions, thus establishing that the Commonwealth’s arguments of conflict were, in fact, speculative;

e. That any arguments as to a conflict regarding who was the actual killer and who was the accomplice did not represent any real conflict of interest in that in the guilt phase an accomplice or conspirator is equally as liable as the actual killer and the Supreme Court has stated that separate counsel should be utilized for the penalty phase.

f. That the Trial Court failed to give due weight to undersigned counsel’s representations in his signed answer to the Commonwealth’s Motion to Disqualify, wherein undersigned counsel, an officer of the Court, represented that he had not discussed anything other than fees with Mr. Kerekes and had obtained no confidential information because Mr. Kerekes was already represented at by other counsel and fails to take into account that although not verified, pursuant to Pa.R.Crim.P. 575(A)(3)(a) that “The signature of an attorney shall constitute a certification that the attorney has read the answer, that to the best of the attorney’s knowledge. information, and belief there is good ground to support the answer, and that it is not interposed for delay".

g. The Commonwealth did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that Mr. Kerekes had any detrimental reliance upon Attorney Fannick’s alleged representation of him or that there was any real, as opposed to speculative, possible detriment to Mr. Kerekes.

h. That the Commonwealth did not establish by clear and convincing evidence that an attorney/client relationship pursuant to Pennsylvania Rules of Professional Conduct 1.9 and 1.7 existed between Mr. Kerekes and Attorney Fannick or that Mr. Fannick had been retained by Mr. Kerekes.

i. That the rules with regard to Rule 1.18 of the Rules of Professional Conduct expressly provide that until an attorney has been retained the attorney should limit conversations to avoid disqualifying information, and a disqualification assumes that Attorney Fannick did not follow Rule 1.18.

j. That the Court did not give any reason why the waiver colloquys of conflict by Kerekes and Cuadra, were not sufficient or invalid and did not overcome any alleged conflict.

k. That the Commonwealth did not rebut the presumption in Wheat V. U.S. 486 U.S. 153, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (1988) in favor of defendant’s counsel of choice that by a showing of an actual conflict or a showing of a serious potential for conflict.

l. In allowing the hearsay testimony regarding statements made by Co-Defendant Kerekes in violation the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence.8O1 through 805.

m. In granting the Commonwealth’s Motion to Disqualify Attorney Fannick in violation of the Defendant’s right to counsel under the U.S. and Pennsylvania Constitutions.

24. The evidence was insufficient to convict the Defendant of First Degree Murder, Conspiracy to commit murder, arson and robbery.

25. The Defendant incorporates the arguments made by his prior defense attorneys which were made in their Briefs in Support of their Motions to Suppress and in Opposition to Commonwealth’s Motion to Disqualify undersigned counsel.

Respctfully submitted,

Demetrius W. Fannick, Esquire
Attorney for Defendant
297 Pierce Street
Kingston. PA 18704
(570) 283-3191
Supreme Court ID 32356

Harlow's Concise Statement of Matters Complained on Appeal... Redux

2009-08-21T20:00:00.008-04:00

Harlow Cuadra's Supplemental Concise Statement was filed today... more shortly.

Update @ 8/22/2009: According to the Times Leader... court papers filed by Cuadra’s attorney, Demetrius Fannick, Cuadra claims a judge erred in allowing recorded conversation from Black’s Beach and Crab Catcher’s Restaurant; and that evidence seized from Cuadra’s home and e-mail accounts should have been suppressed.

Cuadra said a judge erred in allowing a video of Cuadra working out; allowing autopsy photos to be shown twice; that the commonwealth was allowed to ask “leading questions,” as well as several other aspects of detailed events that happened at trial.

Cuadra said in court papers that there wasn’t enough evidence to convict him of first degree murder, conspiracy to commit murder, arson and robbery.

The Delays Continue...

2009-08-17T14:57:00.012-04:00

While convicted murder Harlow Cuadra waits to find out if he can even have an appeal... the following was filed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania on August 5, 2009:

Notice to Lower Court Regarding Delinquent Record

Comment: Overdue record notice and letter requesting the record be transmitted per Rule 1935(a) fowarded to the trial court.
---

Sounds like the Original Record hasn't been received... it was due by June 8, 2009. I'd say it's more than a little late, but then again... with Harlow getting new counsel, the Prosecution asking for more time, and then the Defense asking for more time too... is it really any wonder?

Price Reduced!

2009-08-16T16:41:00.007-04:00

Seems that Harlow and Joe's former house at 1028 Stratem Court is having some trouble selling. The asking price has now been reduced from $415,000 to $399,000.

PPO Gives Fannick 14 Days...

2009-08-08T20:35:00.008-04:00

When attorney Demetrius Fannick filed his entry of appearance to represent Harlow Cuadra for his appeal, he also filed a motion for extension of time to file concise statements complained of on appeal.

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski filed an order Friday, stating that the concise statement is due within 14 days. PPO also gave a similar order to the Commonwealth on 08/03.

Yelen is Out... Fannick is In?

2009-08-05T10:58:00.012-04:00

Though this story is still developing... a very reliable source tells me that Attorney Demetrius Fannick will once again represent Harlow Cuadra... this time for his appeal.

Update @ 3:32 PM: It's official... Attorney Demetrius Fannick filed his entry of appearance earlier today, he also filed a motion for extension of time to file concise statements complained of on appeal.

Update @ 4:47 PM: Harlow's new attorney, Demetrius Fannick cites the following reason for requesting an extension:

"undersigned counsel was not the trial counsel in this case and has recently obtained a copy of the trial transcript. Time is needed to review the transcript and the file in this matter (which is voluminous) in order to file any additional and appropriate Concise Statement of Errors Complained of on Appeal.

WHEREFORE, the defendant requests an extension of time within which to file its 1925(b) Supplemental/additional Statement."

Happy Birthday Harlow!

2009-08-05T09:31:00.009-04:00

Born August 5, 1981... Harlow Cuadra turns 28 today.

PPO Gives More Time...

2009-08-03T16:49:00.016-04:00

Judge Peter Paul Olszewski filed an order today, allowing the Commonwealth another 14 days to file their response to Harlow Cuadra's statement of errors complained of on appeal.

Originally, the Commonwealth filed for an enlargement of time back in May, citing that they had "not received a transcript of the trial testimony and cannot adequately address the Defendent's claims without reviewing the transcript of the evidence that was presented at trial".

The transcripts (Volume's 1 & 2 - Commencing on 02-24-09 and Concluding 03-12-09; 656 pages) where filed on 06/16/2009.

It's Back... Again...

2009-07-24T18:51:00.013-04:00

"SOLD "AS IS" CONDITION, NO REPORTS AVAILABLE"

Not that Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes own it anymore, due to the foreclosure sale on 06/30/2009... but their previously-owned residence at 1028 Stratem Court is once again for sale: this time for $415,000.00.

MLS: 0929975
Broker: Long & Foster Real Estate, Inc
Disclosure: Bank Repo

Harlow Cuadra's Appeal... What's Up?

2009-07-20T17:26:00.015-04:00

From a previous post... reader pizzaman asks a very good question:

"pizzaman said...
This of off topic, but has there been anything on Cuadra's appeal?

Last we heard he was supposed to file something on June 8, but didn't. Is the appeal still alive?"

I checked earlier today and according to court records, Harlow's appeal is still alive and well... the required June 8th filing still hasn't happened... nor have there been sanctions because of it.

The court's docket also hasn't been updated with Harlow's new attorney information (Jeffrey Yelen), and Yelen has yet to file anything in regards to the appeal.

So who knows what's going on... go figure. :)

SOLD!

2009-07-13T16:07:00.016-04:00

As I mentioned earlier... Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' house at 1028 Stratem Court was auctioned-off on 06/30/2009 due to foreclosure. Details of the sale are starting to finally trickle in:

Sale Amount: $573,434.00 (not bad since it was recently assessed at only $462,100.00).

The deed to the properly has been transferred to:

BANK OF NEW YORK TR
BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TR
JPMORGAN CHASE BANK NA TR

Now it's just a matter of finding out who, if anyone, actually owns the property... other than a couple of banks.

Bankruptcy... Three's a Charm?

2009-07-12T18:16:00.029-04:00

Joseph Kerekes filed for Chapter 7 on 12/30/1998 (on his birthday ironically)... Bryan Kocics filed for Chapter 7 on 12/14/2001... and then we have Renee Martin that filed for Chapter 13 on 08/15/2006.

It seems odd that three individuals involved also had the same financial issues. Now with Grant Roy having problems too... I wonder if we'll see a fourth?

If nothing else... all of these folks obviously spent more than they should.

Apparently More Trouble at the Bordelo...

2009-07-11T16:14:00.014-04:00

According to Karla K. Sickerott from the law office of Samuel I. White, P.C. , Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' house was sold at a sheriff sale on 06/30/2009 (There are currently no official records filed that show the transfer, or amount of sale), but that didn't seem to stop the City of Virginia Beach from obtaining a judgement for "Housing and Neighborhood Preservation Code Enforcement" on 07/10/2009 according to vblandrecords.com:

Defendant: Harlow Raymond Cuadra
Plaintiff: City of Virginia Beach

If I had to guess... it was probably an overdue bill for the city coming out to mow their lawn. Good luck in collecting.

Well Who Knew... Redux...

2009-07-05T21:40:00.008-04:00

Remember this post?

Well here's some additional information... Renee Martin also owns boybatter.com... if you're not .net savy it probably won't mean a hill of beans... but I'll be more than happy to give you an annoymous quote from somebody that's been directly affected:

"the last thing I knew... Renee Martin had control of our company, and all of its assets."

Makes sense if you think about it... my thanks to a faithful reader for providing the following:

BOYBATTER domains in .COM

NORFOLKMALEESCORTS com NS1.BOYBATTER
NORFOLKMALEESCORTS com NS2.BOYBATTER

BOISRUS com NS1.BOYBATTER
BOISRUS com NS2.BOYBATTER

BOYBATTERBOYS com NS03.DOMAINCONTROL
BOYBATTERBOYS com NS04.DOMAINCONTROL

BOYBATTER com NS1.MDNSSERVICE
BOYBATTER com NS2.MDNSSERVICE
BOYBATTER com NS3.MDNSSERVICE

BOYBATTERBUCKS com NS1.BOYBATTER
BOYBATTERBUCKS com NS2.BOYBATTER

JOSEPHKEREKESONLINE com NS1.BOYBATTER
JOSEPHKEREKESONLINE com NS2.BOYBATTER

FREEHARLOWCUADRA com NS1.BOYBATTER
FREEHARLOWCUADRA com NS2.BOYBATTER

NORFOLKBOIZ com NS1.BOYBATTER
NORFOLKBOIZ com NS2.BOYBATTER

(No matches in .NET other than boybatter.net, which appears unpaid/directs to a landing page - just like the fate of FREEJOSEPHKEREKES.com)

Things that make you go hmm... again.

Harlow's New Home...

2009-06-25T07:35:00.009-04:00

Harlow Cuadra will spend the rest of his natural life at SCI Coal Township, a medium-security facility for male inmates that opened in May 1993. Ironically it's a much newer facility than were Joseph Kerekes was sent to, which is SCI Huntingdon that opened in 1889.

SCI Coal Township
1 Kelley Drive
Coal Township, PA 17866-1020

Going Once... Going Twice... Sold?

2009-06-20T10:45:00.013-04:00

Convicted murderers Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' former home at 1028 Stratem Court will be auctioned off at a Sheriff Sale on June 30, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. at the Law Offices of Samuel I. White, P.C., 5040 Corporate Woods Drive, Suite 120, Virginia Beach.

Looks like the house saga is about to come to a close... assuming anyone buys it.

Update @ 06/28/2009: According to RealtyTrac, the estimated bid amount is $486,000.00... I don't see it, but who knows, stranger things have happened.

Update @ 07/08/2009: It appears the house did not sell... however I'm awaiting confirmation before making any kind of formal announcement.

Update @ 07/10/2009: According to Karla K. Sickerott from the law office of Samuel I. White, P.C. , the house was indeed sold on 06/30/2009. Now it's just a matter of finding out to whom, and for how much.

Quick Appeal Update...

2009-06-08T17:58:00.006-04:00

According to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania... Harlow Cuadra's attorney was ordered to file the "Original Record" by today.

Thus far... nothing.

Well Who Knew?

2009-06-02T19:18:00.030-04:00

Guess who has control of convicted murders' Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes' old domain names: boisrus.com and norfolkmaleescorts.com... hmm... this should be interesting:

Registrant:
Military Memorabilia Inc
3218 Falcon Ave
Fort worth, Texas 76127
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: BOISRUS.COM
Created on: 05-Feb-02
Expires on: 05-Feb-15
Last Updated on: 20-Nov-07

Administrative Contact:
Martin, Renee militarymemorabilia@yahoo.com
Military Memorabilia Inc
3218 Falcon Ave
Fort worth, Texas 76127
United States
+1.8177055104 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Martin, Renee militarymemorabilia@yahoo.com
Military Memorabilia Inc
3218 Falcon Ave
Fort worth, Texas 76127
United States
+1.8177055104 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.BOYBATTER.COM
NS2.BOYBATTER.COM

---
Registrant:
Military Memorabilia Inc
3218 Falcon Ave
#2
Fort Worth, Texas 76127
United States

Registered through: GoDaddy.com, Inc. (http://www.godaddy.com)
Domain Name: NORFOLKMALEESCORTS.COM
Created on: 05-Nov-02
Expires on: 05-Nov-09
Last Updated on: 20-Nov-07

Administrative Contact:
Martin, Renee militarymemorabilia@yahoo.com
Military Memorabilia Inc
3218 Falcon Ave
#2
Fort Worth, Texas 76127
United States
+1.8177055104 Fax --

Technical Contact:
Martin, Renee militarymemorabilia@yahoo.com
Military Memorabilia Inc
3218 Falcon Ave
#2
Fort Worth, Texas 76127
United States
+1.8177055104 Fax --

Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.BOYBATTER.COM
NS2.BOYBATTER.COM

---
Interestingly, I just spoke to Renee on the phone, and she claims that both domain names expire this July... well I'm sure there's an explanation for that discrepancy too ;)

Harlow's Appeal Goes Forward... For Now.

2009-05-31T16:20:00.020-04:00

On May 18, 2009... The Superior Court of Pennsylvania filed an order directing compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 3517, in regards to Harlow Cuadra's appeal:

"Docketing Statement Due 05/28/09. Failure to file docketing statement by that date will lead to an order dismissing the appeal."

Apparently the Docketing Statement was received by May 29th... and it appears that there will be no dismissal of the appeal (yet).

The next scheduled event by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania is to receive the Original Record, and that's due by June 8, 2009.
---

Just in case you're wondering what an "Original Record" is, a source familiar with the case tells me: The original record is simply the notice that was filed so the Superior Court could issue a number and request when they would like certain documents due. Generally, the local court does not send all of their papers until the record is complete, i.e. all opinions are filed which could be quite a long time depending on the judge.

Harlow Gets New Counsel...

2009-05-27T18:31:00.002-04:00

Conflict counsel attorney Jeffrey Yelen was appointed to Harlow Cuadra today by PPO.

Basically, the order reads:

AND NOW, this 27th day of May, 2009, following a hearing conducted on May 22, 2009. It is hereby ORDERED AND DECREED that the Petition to Withdraw as Counsel filed by Joseph D'Andrea, Esq. and Paul J. Walker, Esq., is hereby GRANTED and Jeffrey A. Yelen, Esquire is hereby appointed as Conflict Counsel.

It is further ORDERED AND DECREED that Joseph D'Andrea, Esq. and Paul J. Walker, Esq., shall provide Conflict Counsel with their file in the within matter no later than Wednesday, May 27, 2009.

BY THE COURT:
OLSZEWSKI, JR.

Will They Stay... or Will They Go?

2009-05-22T09:13:00.010-04:00

A hearing is underway this morning to determine if Harlow Cuadra's trial attorneys' Paul J. Walker and Joe D'Andrea can withdraw as counsel. They originally filed the motion on May 8, 2009, and cited that "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."

Cuadra is expected to appear via video from SCI Camp Hill.

A court watcher is attending the hearing, and I'll update this story as soon as information becomes available.

Update @ 9:22 AM: The hearing has been continued to 2:30 PM today.

Update @ 3:27 PM: According to the Times Leader, Judge Peter Paul Olszewski let Harlow Cuadra’s attorneys withdraw from his case today and new attorneys will be appointed by the end of the day.

Update @ 3:25 PM: The Citizens' Voice is also reporting that Cuadra appeared by video from a state correctional facility during the hearing. He told Olszewski he cannot afford hiring another private attorney to handle his appeals.

"I don't have the means any more, your honor," Cudara said.

In granting the order, Olszewski told Cuadra he would appoint conflict counsel for him, to which Cuadra did not object.

Update @ 7:36 PM: A court watcher tells me that Harlow looked fatter, and like his best friend had died (Very solemn) . Not the same boy-Harlow with the tie and glasses we remember during the trial (yet he still has the glasses).

Apparently the Clock's Ticking...

2009-05-18T14:38:00.005-04:00

The Superior Court of Pennsylvania filed an order today directing compliance with Pa.R.A.P. 3517, in regards to Harlow Cuadra's appeal:

Docketing Statement Due 05/28/09. Failure to file docketing statement by that date will lead to an order dimissing the appeal.

As usual, Harlow's attorney(s) will probably wait until the last possible second. Being that they have that hearing to withdraw on Friday, I'm sure that will decide the outcome.

Weird Coincidence?

2009-05-17T18:43:00.022-04:00

It would appear that convicted murderers' Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes weren't/aren't the only one's dealing with debt issues. Apparently someone by the name of Grant A. Roy from San Diego, California (sound familiar?) has been, and is still currently being sued in Civil Court by several credit card companies too:

IC878915
ROY, GRANT A
CITIBANK SOUTH DAKOTA N A
San Diego
Civil
01/24/2007

37-2009-00087879-CL-R3-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
CAPITAL ONE BANK (USA), N A
San Diego
Civil
04/17/2009

37-2009-00085063-CL-R3-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
CAPITAL ONE BANK [USA] N A
San Diego
Civil
03/13/2009

37-2007-00084858-CL-CL-CTL
ROY, GRANT A
DISCOVER BANK ISSUER OF THE DISCOVER CARD
San Diego
Civil
12/31/2007

Oddly enough, the first suit filed was on the same day Bryan Kocis was murdered... now how weird is that... and what are the chances that there's more than one Grant A. Roy living in the San Diego area?

Strange coincidence, or something deeper? Who knows... but it is kind of odd if you ask me.

Almost Two Years Ago... the Bordello Ends.

2009-05-13T17:50:00.025-04:00

VIRGINIA BEACH - A Virginia Beach male escort and his partner were arrested Tuesday in connection with the slaying of a gay porn film producer who was stabbed to death earlier this year in Pennsylvania.

Harlow Raymond Cuadra, 25, and Joseph Manuel Kerekes, 33, both of 1028 Stratem Court, were arrested by Beach police about 10 a.m. on Virginia Beach Boulevard as they drove in their black BMW, according to Barry Taylor, a Beach attorney who represents Cuadra.

The two men, who operate Norfolk Gay Escorts and Norfolk Companions Inc., as well as at least two Web sites, have been suspects in the case since Beach police executed a search warrant at their home in February.

On Tuesday, they were taken to Virginia Beach police headquarters while investigators with the Pennsylvania State Police considered a host of charges against them relating to the slaying of Bryan C. Kocis of Dallas, Pa., on Jan. 24.

The local headlines on May 15, 2007 read: Two Beach men charged with murder of Pa. porn producer.

Meanwhile... who can forget this account that Harlow gave during John Roecker's interview:

"Harlow: Ah Joe goes up to me, and he goes like, Harlow, you know I'm hungry, and I'm like so, umm big freakin deal, and he's like, I don't wanna go eat alone, and I'm in the middle of listening to this [inaudible], and I press pause on it, and uh, so I'm like alright, I just put on a shirt or something and we go down stairs and you know, when we, when we were on the highway, we noticed that there were like six cop cars behind us, but no lights, no sirens, or anything, ya know, I didn't think anything of it... and umm, once we got off on the exit, more and more of them were behind us and behind us, and I was like hey Joe, I think their doing some type of exercise, because ah, right across from my house there's a police academy... so I'm like, oh, ah, that's cool, there doing some type of exercise. So we pull in, and, ah, the ladies that work at the Boston Market, you know, like, their used to me, and they're like waiving from ah, outside the window, and I'm like waiving back, and then all of a sudden I noticed that they stopped waiving, so I looked behind me, and you know, all the cops are out of their cars".

... needless to say Harlow's story is mostly fiction... so is there any surprise that almost two years later... both are now serving life in prison without parole?

No surprise here.

Here We Go Again...

2009-05-11T17:12:00.013-04:00

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.

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.

Some Interesting Developments...

2009-05-08T11:55:00.010-04:00

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.

Gladis Begs Again...

2009-05-03T20:15:00.005-04:00

With convicted murder Harlow Cuadra facing over two life terms in prison, Harlow's mother Glaidis Zaldivar once again tries to collect money for Harlow via MySpace... this time for his appeal:

"DONATIONS TO GET HARLOW AN APPEALS ATTORNEY!!! We are accepting any donation through P.O. BOX 14416 GREENVILLE, SC 29610 please send it to Gladis Zaldivar mother of Harlow Cuadra, send personal checks or money orders to my P.O. Box. Unfortunately there were problems in the past with my sons donations, also going into the wrong hands, basically money was lost, that's why I ask if you would like to donate money for my sons appeals attorney to please send it to my P.O. Box so that it WILL get to the attorney accepted for my sons appeals wars coming up.... Harlow has grown up to be a handsome, respectful, kind and loving man, the envy of many people, but with love and support and your help we can free him, and return his wings that were unfairly taken from him. *Please help us put the RIGHT pieces to this puzzle in its CORRECT place* GOD BLESS ALL OF YOU!"

According to a source, it should be noted that these "problems in the past" where due to the person handling the donations eventually felt that Harlow was guilty, and decided to send the donations back (...so I'm told).

Perhaps it's nothing more than what man about town said in a previous post... "Harlow now has his family doing the con job. Send them a check now, so they could renovate their trailer." ... or perhaps she's once again claiming to be dealing with another set of 'greedy lawyers'.

Who knows... and does anyone even care?

Concise Statement of Matters Complained on Appeal

2009-05-01T08:26:00.002-04:00

As expected, Harlow's attorney's have filed their Concise Statement of Matters Complained on Appeal yesterday... all 1 page(s) of it:

Concise Statement of Matters Complained on Appeal

Now comes the Defendant, Harlow Cuadra, by and through his Attorney Paul J. Walker and submits the following Concise Statement of Matters Complained on Appeal:

1. The Trial Court erred in denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress electronically recorded oral statements and conversations at Crabcatcher's Restaurant in La Hoya, California in April 27, 2007.

2. The Trial Court erred in denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress electronically recorded oral statements and conversations at Black Beach, San Diego, California on April 28, 2007.

3. The Trial Court erred in denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress physical evidence seized from the Defendant's residence at 1028 Stratem Court, Virginia Beach, Virginia.

4. The Trial Court erred in denying the Defendant's Motion to Suppress physical evidence seized regarding Defendant's e-mail accounts.

5. The Trial Court erred in allowing gruesome photographs into evidence which served no purpose.

Respectfully Submitted,

Paul J. Walker, Esquire