Cobra Killer (27 page)

Fannick
had
been a bit of a thorn in the side of the state, after having successfully defended notorious accused Luzerne County serial killer Hugo Selenski in 2006. The DA was adamant that Fannick should not represent Cuadra because of a potential conflict from his meetings with Kerekes, insisted Luzerne County’s newly elected District Attorney, Jackie Musto Carroll. Fannick was not backing down, noting that in his view the DA had no standing to raise this issue. “I don’t think the DA should be arresting people, and then decide who their lawyer is going to be,” he said.
⁽³⁾

On February 21, 2008, during a hearing to consider eventually unsuccessful motions filed by Kerekes to dismiss the charges against him for a lack of evidence and to require the state to reveal whether they viewed him as the principal killer, the issue of Fannick’s participation blew up. All of the lawyers and both defendants summoned to Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas before Judge Peter Paul Olszewski, Jr. sought to resolve the issue of Fannick’s participation. During the hearing, whatever agreement Fannick had with Kerekes, his plans now included defending Cuadra and revealed a new problem, a possible split in the united front Cuadra and Kerekes had heretofore proffered.

Kerekes had an outburst in court as the matter was discussed, requiring jail guards and his attorney, John Pike, to calm him. Kerekes yelled near the start of the hearing that he didn’t want Fannick to have anything to do with the case if he planned to use anything the two had discussed during their meetings. The
Times Leader
quoted Kerekes as shouting out, “Harlow won’t roll on me.”
⁽⁴⁾

Even assistant DA Melnick was in an uncooperative mood. He told Judge Olszewski that he was hesitant to proceed with calling witnesses to rebut Kerekes’ dismissal motions because the issue of Fannick’s participation remained unresolved. Olszewski agreed, and delayed hearing evidence on either side of Kerekes’ motions until he had ruled on the other state motions about whether Fannick could remain as Cuadra’s counsel.

To buttress its claims to get Fannick thrown off the case, the DA offered a series of conflicts they said were raised by his participation, notably:

• Fannick had issued a news release on November 28, 2007 stating that he planned to represent Kerekes in the Kocis murder trial. In the statement to the media, he said, “I would certainly like to get involved in Mr. Kerekes’ case. I believe it is very defendable. But I can’t do anything until I am retained. There are certain limitations on my conversations with him. I do not want to overstep my bounds. I don’t want to in any way interfere with Mr. Kerekes’ representation unless I am retained.”
  
• Fannick met with Kerekes eight times for a total of five hours at the Luzerne County Correctional Facility, including October 26 and 30, 2007; November 7, 2007; December 6, 7 and 14, 2007; and finally on January 11, 2008.
  
• Kerekes’ state-appointed attorneys at the time, Shelley Centini and John Pike, had reservations about anyone meeting with their client prior to trial, but they acquiesced because they believed Fannick was about to enter himself as Kerekes’ chief defense counsel.
  
• After filing an appearance on behalf of Cuadra in January 2008, just eighteen days after he last met with Kerekes, Fannick told reporters, “I’m on board and it is my understanding (there) will be a trial. I don’t see any other way it is going to be resolved unless the DA’s office drops the charges. My client (Cuadra) maintains his innocence.”
  

For his part, Fannick continued to insist he never officially represented Kerekes in the matter, and only met with him for the purposes of deciding whether he should or could be retained (according to Kerekes, for fees in excess of $100,000 that he was unable to raise).

In a March 2008 hearing before Olszewski to resolve the Fannick issue, Kerekes would back that claim saying the two “absolutely” never discussed a defense strategy, never discussed his whereabouts on the day Kocis was killed, never discussed the merits of the commonwealth’s case, never discussed any possible cooperation with the state, and never accepted any legal advice or opinions from Fannick.
⁽⁵⁾

Melnick apparently had doubts and peppered Kerekes with reminders that he had blurted out previously in court he didn’t want Fannick using anything they discussed in defense of Cuadra. Kerekes explained away his outburst as saying he was “emotional” on the day of the original hearing.

Kerekes was the only witness called in the hearing to resolve Fannick’s participation, and so Olszewski would have to base his decision solely on that testimony. Fannick did not testify under oath as to his discussions with Kerekes. Kerekes would later contradict himself again, admitting in a state prison interview that he lied in court, and that his discussions with Fannick went far beyond the fee structure.
⁽⁶⁾

Melnick implored Judge Olszewski to rule a conflict existed. “The appearance of fairness…is paramount. To condone this conflict of interest is just wrong.”
⁽⁷⁾

Olszewski issued his order on March 19, 2008, disqualifying Fannick as Cuadra’s counsel. He said his decision reflected his commitment to “promote and protect the truth seeking function of the judicial system.” Olszewski’s order said that Kerekes’ in-court outburst when he saw Fannick, “If you try to use anything we spoke about, I’ll have you removed,” convinced the court that “a lawyer-client relationship exists between Fannick and Kerekes.”
⁽⁸⁾

Describing Kerekes’ testimony as “unpersuasive” and “unconvincing,” Olszewski dumped Fannick from any possible participation in Cuadra’s defense. In a statement accompanying his order, the judge said “had attorney Fannick testified under oath that no substantive discussions occurred, today’s ruling may well be different. That attorney Fannick elected not to do so made this court’s decision clear.”
⁽⁹⁾

Fannick told reporters that he had underestimated the value of his own testimony to buttress Kerekes’ claim that no conflict had been created.

A week later, supporters of Cuadra posted a notice on his blog that an appeal was planned and that Fannick would be representing him in his upcoming trial.
⁽¹⁰⁾

Apparently irritated by the role Kerekes’ “unpersuasive” testimony had played in the matter, Cuadra was quoted by his supporters as saying that “As for Joe’s outbursts in court, well, as we all know that is Joe, and no one can stop him from running his mouth, whether it be truth or fiction.”
⁽¹¹⁾

Later, during pre-trial proceedings, one attorney for both Cuadra
and
Kerekes were removed when it was “discovered” that the two were now employed by the same law firm. Attorney Mark Bufalino, one of three lawyers working for Kerekes, and attorney Paul Galante, working for Cuadra, were removed from the case, causing further delays.

The episode did reveal publicly for the first time the growing schism between Cuadra and Kerekes. Galante told Judge Olszewski that Cuadra was holding some hostility toward Kerekes, and Kerekes’ attorneys alleged the same hostility existed on the part of their client as well.

It was clear, the one-time lovers might eventually have to turn and implicate the other in the Kocis murder. The pre-trial exchange confirmed what observers could already see in court during the pre-trial phase, that although seated near one another, Cuadra avoided direct eye contact with the more animated Kerekes. The two men looked only briefly at one another, and they never spoke directly to each other (even during break periods when the judge was outside of the courtroom).
⁽¹²⁾

The families of Bryan Kocis and Joe Kerekes were the most visible in the court throughout most of the proceedings, including the pre-trial hearing. Joe’s father donned a baseball cap emblazoned with the word “JESUS” on the front with Joe and Harlow’s names on the back.

As expected, the parade of attorneys on and off the case created a blizzard of motions on behalf of both defendants, all but one unsuccessful. Attorneys for Kerekes and Cuadra lost on efforts to have separate trials, to have the trial moved out of Luzerne County, to keep victim autopsy and crime scene photos sealed, to suppress any statements either man made to police during their arrests, to exclude evidence seized from their Virginia home, and the lynchpin to the prosecution’s case, to exclude tape recordings of conversations the defendants conducted over two days in San Diego in April 2007. The only effort that did succeed was to keep a portion of Kerekes’ remarks to state police detectives while under arrest in Virginia Beach away from a jury. In the end, it mattered not: no jury was ever called in Kerekes’ case after he accepted the state’s plea agreement.

Harlow goes in search of an alibi

One of Cuadra’s best clients, certainly his most generous, businessman Howard Mitchell Halford of Atlanta, Georgia, said Harlow told him that “a bad alibi is better than no alibi.”
⁽¹³⁾
Cuadra, who initially attempted to deny he was ever in Pennsylvania and then shifted it to say he was there for a camping trip and/or modeling appointment with the victim, needed someone to back up his story.

One of his proposed alibis was to come from Halford, a man who said he loved Cuadra. Halford later told detectives that Cuadra approached him at the end of January or early in February 2007, saying he was upset about his picture being circulated on the Internet as a “person of interest” in the Kocis investigation.

Halford said Cuadra was concerned because Cuadra claimed he was at home the night of the murder and therefore had no alibi. A week later, Cuadra contacted Halford again and said he needed someone to act as an alibi witness for him, and Halford said he agreed to help, knowing that, in Cuadra’s words, his original statement to police “had not gone well.”

Cuadra asked Halford to call his attorney, Barry Taylor, and let him know that he would be an alibi witnesses, and Halford even met with Taylor about the alleged alibi. “Halford stated that he went to Barry Taylor for Harlow because they are very close companions, have an intimate relationship, and he was concerned about Harlow’s well-being,” detectives would later write in a report. “Halford (said he) felt underlying pressures that if he didn’t cooperate there may be a problem with Joe Kerekes. Halford stated that Kerekes was very aggressive and a controlling individual toward Harlow. Halford was concerned about his and Harlow’s welfare in this regard.”
⁽¹⁴⁾

Halford would later drop any pretense of an alibi, and backed out of providing any information that would be useful to Cuadra placing himself away from Pennsylvania on the night Kocis was killed. He didn’t back out, however, on helping Cuadra’s defense, admitting that because he loved Cuadra he contributed $70,000 in cash to help pay for a defense attorney.
⁽¹⁵⁾

Nep Maliki, another frequent Cuadra escort client who harbored amorous feelings for him, would prove to be an interesting, if not terribly damaging, potential alibi witness. It didn’t matter. Cuadra’s feeble attempts to gain an alibi from Maliki and others were soon exposed. Uncovering that effort would take a lot of hard work—something investigators, particularly Hannon, never seemed to shy away from.

Virginia Beach and Pennsylvania investigators worked long hours trying to find Maliki. Often employed at fast food restaurants such as McDonald’s and Wendy’s, assistant DAs Melnick and Crake, along with State Police Corporal Hannon, spent the better part of a very hot day in Virginia Beach trying to find Maliki, visiting every McDonald’s and Wendy’s restaurant in the area, until they found him. “(Corporal) Leo Hannon really, really wanted to speak to Nep again,” Melnick said. Maliki had been previously interviewed only briefly by Pennsylvania detectives. “We stayed another day in Virginia Beach and we began our odyssey on a blistering Saturday morning there, searching for Nep Maliki.”
⁽¹⁶⁾

He would prove difficult to find. A man of Filipino descent, in his 50s, who lives at his parent’s home and often worked two fast-food jobs to support himself, Nep was someone investigators wanted to talk to because he “was delighted to be, I guess, a participant in Harlow’s life,” Melnick said.
⁽¹⁷⁾

A day of searching ended around 5:00 P.M. Saturday evening at the back door of a Virginia Beach Wendy’s restaurant, near the drive-through order board. Melnick and Crake, nearly sick from the almost 100 degree heat and humidity, stepped back as Hannon interviewed Maliki who stood in the back door of the Wendy’s. It was a weird setting to collect what turned out to be key evidence. “I was standing off to the side in the blistering heat smoking a cigar and wondering whether Charles Dickens could create a better scene for one of his novels,” Melnick said.

The interview became “a slam-dunk interview,” Melnick said. “Nep Maliki pulls out of his pocket a hand-written, fake alibi (from Cuadra) that no investigator had found before.”
⁽¹⁸⁾

Crake was equally amazed at their good luck. “He’s got this crinkled up note that he’s been carrying around in his wallet for eight months,” she said, noting it was a “big break.”
⁽¹⁹⁾

Melnick, Crake, and Hannon couldn’t believe their good luck. Melnick credits Hannon for his bird-dog tenacity in digging up a key piece of evidence.

The note that Maliki produced showed the desperation sweeping over Cuadra as he sat locked up in a jail cell and sought help in building a defense against evidence that was quickly mounting against him.

In the June 13, 2007 note from Cuadra to Maliki, Cuadra  wrote:

Hi Nep.

This letter is for your eyes only. Thank you so much for your help Nep. Like I said over the phone, if my lawyer needs you to testify for me in court, your transportation and salary will be covered. He will give you a legal letter for you to present to both of your employers. I remember that you came over on January 24
^th
about 7:30 A.M., maybe it was 8 A.M. You had on black jeans and a black heavy sweater. Black slip on leather shoes. There were several cars in the driveway. A black corvette (sic.), a black BMW, a yellow viper (sic.) and a silver nissan extera (sic.) parked in front of the house. My S2000 honda (sic.) was in the shop still, so I rented the nissan (sic.) in case it snowed. I had on a black leather jacket, blue jeans, and the hat that is on the blog website. You know the one where I am making a muscle. We met up for an hour, then you showered with me and left. I guess the thing we need to get clear is the time you came over. Did you work early that day after you saw me? At what time did you go to work that day? Please check with your work. Please ask these questions over the phone, not in writing.