Harlow Cuadra makes National Headlines Again...

From local newspapers like The Times Leader and Citizens Voice, to national affiliates like the San Diego Gay & Lesbian News and Associated Press... Harlow's attempt at getting an appeal really seems to be making the rounds. Ironically, I've been covering the story on this blog since 2009, and then there's the original that was created in 2007. It's Déjà vu.

In the PCRA Petition and subsequent filings, Harlow's attorney, Demetrius Fannick, brings up the following arguments:

1. Harlow's trial attorneys, Paul Walker and Joseph D'Andrea, did not have sufficient time to prepare for his defense.
2. Co-defendant Joseph Kerekes is the actual killer.
3. Witnesses testified Kerekes was an abusive boyfriend and business partner and controlled Harlow.
4. Walker and D'Andrea did not raise a duress defense due to Kerekes' controlling power over Cuadra.
5. Disqualification of attorney Demetrius Fannick from defending Cuadra after Fannick had met with Kerekes in jail. Cuadra and Kerekes had separate defense strategies.
6. Trial Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. permitted prosecutors to play for the jury a video of Cuadra lifting weights.

Here's my two cents on the matter:

1. During this most recent hearing, D’Andrea stated: “Time did not play a factor in the preparation of this case." I would see no reason for him to lie. Though I would agree that a couple of months seems rather short to prepare for a Capital Murder Trial, it's also quite evident that the attorneys' didn't have much to work with.
2. According to the trial transcripts, neither side really pushed Kerekes when he came into court and double-crossed Cuadra. He said, "I don't want to talk and hurt my parents" and that was it. Other than Harlow making the claim that Joe's the killer, there really isn't any factual proof.
3. Not much effort was made to paint Cuadra as anything other than a prostitute - most of the character witnesses they had were people who really didn't know him.
4. I find Fannick's argument of duress odd. I agree with the notion that you really only argue that if you are going to admit the act - which Cuadra likely won't do. Not to mention the fact that it was stated by his own trial attorneys' that Cuadra was "not forthcoming" about even being at the scene until the trial.
5. The disqualification of Demetrius Fannick was justified. Fannick refused to take the stand, under oath, to testify that he didn't discuss the case with Kerekes - enough said.
6. According to my past and current interviews with several jurors, the "Big House Gym" video really didn't sway their decision. In reality, would it even matter? After all, it was the defense that showed the Black's Beach video showing Harlow throwing a football 'like a girl' - you can't have it both ways.

With the above, and the fact that Harlow took the stand and admitted to being at the scene of the crime, witnessing the murder, and even helping to loot and burn the house - I don't see a new trial being granted.

- PC

Who's the new Judge?

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.

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.

PPO Gets the Boot...

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.

PPO Gives Fannick 14 Days...

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.

PPO Gives More Time...

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.

Jurors Express Gratitude & Restored Faith in Luzerne County’s Judicial System.

The following is a portion of an opinion written in today's Times Leader by reporter Edward Lewis:

Signs of restored confidence

It surprised me to hear Olszewski even mention the embarrassment considering the public’s outrage.

But that’s Olszewski -- not afraid to take risks.

Olszewski called an audible and it worked.

After Cuadra’s three-week trial ended, two jurors who listened to testimony wrote letters to Muroski expressing their gratitude and restored faith in our county’s judicial system.

“As a taxpayer of Luzerne County, I was ashamed and disappointed with the scandal that fell upon the county courthouse,” wrote Juror No. 1 Ellen Matulis. “On Feb. 17, 2009, I reported for jury duty with fear and dread in my heart. … Judge Peter Paul Olszewski Jr. started the trial …with great authority and intelligence of the law. He was fair and impartial yet showed respect and compassion for all parties involved in the case including the jurors.”

Alternate Juror No. 1 Shannon M. Gurski wrote “… I was very unsure of what to expect when I was selected to be a juror in this case, particularly given all that has happened over the course of the last several months. I am very pleased to say that Judge Olszewski Jr. has restored my faith in the Luzerne County judicial system. His integrity and obvious devotion to the law were inspiring to witness over the three weeks that I was in his courtroom.”

It appears faith has already begun to be restored – just one audible at a time.