Suspect in Kocis killing gets new attorneys

WILKES-BARRE – One of two men accused of killing a gay porn producer is getting new attorneys.

A Luzerne County judge on Friday appointed attorneys from outside the public defender’s office to defend Joseph Kerekes on homicide charges in connection with the slaying of Bryan Kocis.

Kerekes’ co-defendant, Harlow Cuadra, will still be represented by public defenders.

The move came after attorney Jonathan Blum, a public defender, asked for attorneys outside his office to represent the men because of potential conflicts of interest with his office defending both men.

Kerekes and Cuadra face homicide and other charges in the Jan. 24 slaying of the Dallas Township man.

Investigators claim Cuadra, 26, and Kerekes, 33, killed Kocis, their rival in the gay porn industry, inside Kocis’ Midland Drive home and then set the home on fire. Kocis, 44, was found dead by firefighters.

Assistant district attorneys Mike Melnick, Tim Doherty, Shannon Crake, and William Dunn are seeking the death penalty.

Public defenders had been representing both men.

According to Blum’s court papers filed Friday, having public defenders represent both men creates a significant conflict of interest because the men, at trial, could accuse the other as the principal killer.

Also, Blum wrote, he and Al Flora Jr. had represented Kocis in the past. Flora is the county’s first assistant public defender.

Blum wanted outside attorneys appointed for both men but Court of Common Pleas Judge Mark Ciavarella opted to appoint outside attorneys for only Kerekes.

Ciavarella appointed attorneys John Pike, Mark Bufalino, and Shelley Centini to defend Kerekes.

They are attorneys on the Luzerne County payroll and not associated with the public defender’s office. They are provided to indigent defendants who have a conflict of interest with the public defenders. SOURCE

Interesting turn of events eh? Is this really fair?

I've been following this case since it broke and it just gets more interesting every day...

It makes PERFECT sense for the defense to pull this...

A) It buys more time; and in cases of murder trials, aside from acquittal; more time is what you pray for!

B) As more time passes, it becomes more likely the two defendants will turn on each other; and from what I have seen/heard so far, it does appear as though they are (in MY opinion) most likely guilty. So it's only a matter of time before one accuses the other...and who knows, maybe that process has already started which prompted the PD's office to seek new council.

In any event; it probably isn't in their best interested for both to be defended by the same office. Though not good timing for them.

I don't see anything extraordinary from this story at all.

There should be complete separation of counsel for the two accused, so it is appropriate to appoint defense lawyers from outside the public defender's office in a case like this.

As for timing, I have no idea how it could be bad for the defendants. It was my experience as a prosecutor that cases NEVER got better as they aged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

As for timing, I have no idea how it could be bad for the defendants. It was my experience as a prosecutor that cases NEVER got better as they aged.

---

You would definitely know better than me Chad :D

I would just think it's never good to have to bring in a new lawyer so far in the game; but then again I suppose fresh eyes might uncover something not noticed before.

They really are not that far yet -- just in the preliminary stages.

A Judge will let a private lawyer withdraw for not being paid early in the case, but there reaches a point where a privately retained lawyer will not be permitted to withdraw because it would harm the defendant's case. Of course, that is about the time the privately-retained-and-owed-money defense lawyer tells his client he should take a plea.

However, a public defender gets paid no matter what. A public defender will have pressures due to caseload but not for lack of payroll.

My experience with the public defender's office in Iowa was very positive -- the attorneys there really cared about the best defense for their clients, unlike privately retained lawyers that want the best defense for their paying clients.

Attorneys that are appointed to a case where the death penalty is being requested typically have to be state certified to handle a death penalty case, so I am confident that they are getting competent legal representation with the appointments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Squirt

Assistant district attorneys Mike Melnick, Tim Doherty, Shannon Crake, and William Dunn are seeking the death penalty.

---

Do you guys think they should get death over this?

This murder seems to have been..... I don't want to say well thought out because it wasn't.... but it was planned in advance with plenty of time to realize how wrong this was every step of the way.

I think if Krekes really did stay at the hotel like he claimed in one newspaper article, you give him the possibility of parole someday. Whoever was there for the actual murder, hang 'em high.

If I moved a bit to the right politically, I might be a liberal.



I don't believe that the government should kill someone in punishment, even for a murder. [My opinion changes when there are several consecutive murders] Taking a life is not the answer for taking a life --

two wrongs do not make a right

an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will only lead to blind, toothless people

From Amnesty International, the countries that still utilize the death penalty for ordinary crimes:

AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ETHIOPIA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZIMBABWE


http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng

What a nice roll-call from the Who's Who in Third World Countries Today

How does one find out the court dates for the actual trial? I'm thinking it might be interesting to see this example of Pennsylvania justice.

Keith

nice list Chad, how's that go again, something about the company you keep ? My big kick is it's always the born again christians who scream the loudest for the death penalty.

How Would Jesus execute ? Wanna bet he has strong opinions on the subject ?

I dunno if someone killed my son I'd want them dead, not to pay for their upkeep (cable, congical visitations, cigs, etc) in jail.

Maybe if the families of murder victims could be exempt from paying taxes the rest of their life I'd feel differently.

I do know how victims feel. I also know, or at least I think I know, how to view a case objectively without emotion or prejudice.



These are my unscientific poll results:

If it is a family member that is killed, that person is pro-death penalty.

If it is a family member that faces the death penalty, then that person does not support the death penalty.

So Squirt, I respect your opinion as to what you would want if your son was killed. What would you want if your son was on trial for murder?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

I also know, or at least I think I know, how to view a case objectively without emotion or prejudice.

---

Exactly why you are the only attorney I recommend.. that and you're some sorta sexy cute :bunny:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

From Amnesty International, the countries that still utilize the death penalty for ordinary crimes:

AFGHANISTAN, ANTIGUA AND BARBUDA, BAHAMAS, BAHRAIN, BANGLADESH, BARBADOS, BELARUS, BELIZE, BOTSWANA, BURUNDI, CAMEROON, CHAD, CHINA, COMOROS, CONGO (Democratic Republic), CUBA, DOMINICA, EGYPT, EQUATORIAL GUINEA, ETHIOPIA, GUATEMALA, GUINEA, GUYANA, INDIA, INDONESIA, IRAN, IRAQ, JAMAICA, JAPAN, JORDAN, KAZAKSTAN, KOREA (North), KOREA (South), KUWAIT, LEBANON, LESOTHO, LIBYA, MALAYSIA, MONGOLIA, NIGERIA, OMAN, PAKISTAN, PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY, QATAR, SAINT CHRISTOPHER & NEVIS, SAINT LUCIA, SAINT VINCENT & GRENADINES, SAUDI ARABIA, SIERRA LEONE, SINGAPORE, SOMALIA, SUDAN, SYRIA, TAIWAN, TAJIKISTAN, THAILAND, TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO, UGANDA, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UZBEKISTAN, VIET NAM, YEMEN, ZIMBABWE


http://web.amnesty.org/pages/deathpenalty-countries-eng

What a nice roll-call from the Who's Who in Third World Countries Today

---

Makes me sick to my stomach. I say we re-institue corporal punishment. A good spanking could have helped both those boys before it got this far!

:specs:

Of course, I might have ulterior motives.

:yeah:

Even if you're a Christian I always looked on the story of Jesus not stoning the woman as a sign that no one is worthy of taking the life of someone else. Even if the person is guilty. Jesus Himself WAS worthy of doing whatever he wanted, and even he allowed her to go on her way on the condition that she "sin no more".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

If I moved a bit to the right politically, I might be a liberal.



I don't believe that the government should kill someone in punishment, even for a murder. [My opinion changes when there are several consecutive murders] Taking a life is not the answer for taking a life --

two wrongs do not make a right

an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth will only lead to blind, toothless people

---