What else should we have expected??? I'll post more tomorrow...

TNT DISCLAIMER: The following article is property of the cited newspaper and/or author. I did not write it nor do not make any claims to have written it. Read at your own risk!

Judge: Ruling on Selenski/Weakley trial will wait
Times Leader, Posted on Tue, Mar. 13, 2007 here

WILKES-BARRE – A judge on Tuesday did not issue a ruling on whether homicide suspects Hugo Selenski and Paul Weakley will be tried together.

Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Chester Muroski heard legal arguments on the issue Tuesday, but will issue a ruling at a later date.

For more on Tuesday’s hearing read tomorrow’s Times Leader.

Hey, notice that I even used the disclaimer for the LTE. It's universal. Because you may or may not agree with my views. You're free to argue with me. Or just read and not comment, that's fine, too. I still try to post updates here as much as I can... I almost missed these articles from Sunday!!

TNT DISCLAIMER: The following article is property of the cited newspaper and/or author. I did not write it nor do not make any claims to have written it. Read at your own risk!

Citizens Voice 03/11/2007 here
Judicial race will test Lupas’ record
By Dave Janoski, Staff Writer

Luzerne County District Attorney David Lupas is hoping to follow a well-worn path from the prosecutor’s office to a judge’s chambers at the county courthouse.

The district attorney’s office has traditionally been a stepping-stone to the county bench. Four of Lupas’ seven predecessors as top county prosecutor went on to serve as county judges, wooing voters with the name recognition and courtroom experience a stint as district attorney can bring.

But Lupas’ sole opponent for a 10-year term on the county bench, attorney Thomas Marsilio, hopes to turn Lupas’ eight years as district attorney to his own advantage, pointing to a string of criminal cases recently dismissed by county judges and the failed homicide prosecution in the high-profile Hugo Selenski case.

Over the past 14 months, nine cases were dismissed because missteps by police or prosecutors prevented Lupas’ office from bringing defendants to trial within one year after charges were filed or 120 days after a mistrial — violations of the state’s speedy trial rule. A 10th speedy trial case is awaiting a hearing in county court.

“Obviously that’s unsatisfactory,” said Marsilio, who, like Lupas, is a Democrat seeking both the Republican and Democratic nominations for judge in May. “It bears on one’s ability to manage. It bears on one’s attention to detail. It bears on one’s qualifications to be promoted in the system.”

But Lupas defended his performance, arguing that most of the cases arrived at his office more than a year after charges were filed because defendants had failed to show up for hearings or couldn’t be located to be served with papers. In those cases, judges ruled that police had not shown enough diligence in trying to find the defendants.

“These are not cases where we lost track of cases … These are not cases we ignored,” Lupas said. “I don’t think it shows or displays any fault with our system.”

Some of the cases arrived at the district attorney’s office before a year expired, but time ran out before the next session of criminal court, Lupas said.

In some cases, court-ordered video hearings for defendants being held in prisons outside the county couldn’t be set up in time.

“We don’t set the trial schedule. Some delays had to do with waiting for hearings by video. Some of this is the court’s doing.”

Lupas pointed to cases withdrawn by his predecessor, Peter Paul Olszewski Jr., who is now a county judge, because of potential speedy trial issues — 18 cases from 1998 and 1999.

“We could have done that. We could have withdrawn the cases. But these were cases where the police felt they had an argument to make and we took them to court.”

Olszewski, district attorney from 1992 through 1999, said his office had some cases dismissed by judges — as opposed to withdrawn by prosecutors — over speedy-trial issues. But he couldn’t give an exact number. He agreed that prosecutors aren’t always at fault in such cases.

“Sometimes a case getting dismissed is not the fault of the DA’s office. Sometimes it’s the fault of the law enforcement agency.”

The number of cases dismissed over speedy trial issues during Olszewski’s two terms could not be determined last week. Personnel in the county Clerk of Courts Office said the office’s computer system was not set up to easily separate out such cases, many of which were closed a decade or more ago.

Lupas and his staff have handled 35,000 to 40,000 cases since he was first elected in 1999, including more than 60 homicides. But one case in particular might have the most bearing on his bid to become judge.

Hugo Selenski was arrested in June 2003 and eventually charged with killing four people whose remains were found buried or burned behind his home in Kingston Township. In October 2003, Selenski strung a dozen sheets out the window of his seventh-floor cell at the county prison and was at large for three days before turning himself in, attracting national news coverage.

Selenski, 33, was acquitted last year in two of the allegedly drug-related killings. The jury found him guilty of abuse of a corpse and acquitted him of second- and third-degree murder. But it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on first-degree murder. A judge ruled a retrial on the last charge was not possible because of the other acquittals.

Awaiting trial on the remaining two homicides, Selenski has publicly taunted Lupas, who did not participate in the first trial, but is the lead prosecutor in the second.

In his announcement of his candidacy in January, Marsilio, a former assistant district attorney and state deputy attorney general, jabbed at Lupas over the Selenski case:

“No one I ever tried for murder was ever acquitted.”

Judge Chester Muroski has yet to set a date for the second Selenski trial. The timing could be crucial to the judicial race, which would be over in May if one of the two candidates wins both parties’ nominations. If each candidate wins a nomination, they would face off again in the November general election.

“Depending on the outcome of that trial, Lupas could either benefit greatly or face some unhappy voters,” said Thomas Baldino, a political science professor at Wilkes University. “He will be judged on that trial. Selenski goes out of his way to put his finger in the DA’s eye.”

Lupas said he “accepts the jury’s verdict” in the first homicide trial, but adds there are additional charges in Luzerne and Monroe counties facing Selenski.

“That first trial was just one chapter.”

Deny it, baby, deny it!! You're so good at it! Aye yay yay, please people, pleaaaase, don't vote this 'record' into the judge's seat!!!!

TNT DISCLAIMER: The following article is property of the cited newspaper and/or author. I did not write it nor do not make any claims to have written it. Read at your own risk!

Citizens Voice 03/11/2007 here
It’s money vs. geography in judicial race
By Dave Janoski, Staff Writer

In some cases, court-ordered video hearings for defendants being held in prisons outside the county couldn’t be set up in time.

“We don’t set the trial schedule. Some delays had to do with waiting for hearings by video. Some of this is the court’s doing.”

Lupas pointed to cases withdrawn by his predecessor, Peter Paul Olszewski Jr., who is now a county judge, because of potential speedy trial issues — 18 cases from 1998 and 1999.

“We could have done that. We could have withdrawn the cases. But these were cases where the police felt they had an argument to make and we took them to court.”

Olszewski, district attorney from 1992 through 1999, said his office had some cases dismissed by judges — as opposed to withdrawn by prosecutors — over speedy-trial issues. But he couldn’t give an exact number. He agreed that prosecutors aren’t always at fault in such cases.

“Sometimes a case getting dismissed is not the fault of the DA’s office. Sometimes it’s the fault of the law enforcement agency.”

The number of cases dismissed over speedy trial issues during Olszewski’s two terms could not be determined last week. Personnel in the county Clerk of Courts Office said the office’s computer system was not set up to easily separate out such cases, many of which were closed a decade or more ago.

Lupas and his staff have handled 35,000 to 40,000 cases since he was first elected in 1999, including more than 60 homicides. But one case in particular might have the most bearing on his bid to become judge.

Hugo Selenski was arrested in June 2003 and eventually charged with killing four people whose remains were found buried or burned behind his home in Kingston Township. In October 2003, Selenski strung a dozen sheets out the window of his seventh-floor cell at the county prison and was at large for three days before turning himself in, attracting national news coverage.

Selenski, 33, was acquitted last year in two of the allegedly drug-related killings. The jury found him guilty of abuse of a corpse and acquitted him of second- and third-degree murder. But it was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on first-degree murder. A judge ruled a retrial on the last charge was not possible because of the other acquittals.

Awaiting trial on the remaining two homicides, Selenski has publicly taunted Lupas, who did not participate in the first trial, but is the lead prosecutor in the second.

In his announcement of his candidacy in January, Marsilio, a former assistant district attorney and state deputy attorney general, jabbed at Lupas over the Selenski case:

“No one I ever tried for murder was ever acquitted.”

Judge Chester Muroski has yet to set a date for the second Selenski trial. The timing could be crucial to the judicial race, which would be over in May if one of the two candidates wins both parties’ nominations. If each candidate wins a nomination, they would face off again in the November general election.

“Depending on the outcome of that trial, Lupas could either benefit greatly or face some unhappy voters,” said Thomas Baldino, a political science professor at Wilkes University. “He will be judged on that trial. Selenski goes out of his way to put his finger in the DA’s eye.”

Lupas said he “accepts the jury’s verdict” in the first homicide trial, but adds there are additional charges in Luzerne and Monroe counties facing Selenski.

“That first trial was just one chapter.”

Legal issues aside, the decisive factors in the judicial race between David Lupas and Tom Marsilio are likely to be economic and geographic.

Lupas has a history of raising large pots of campaign cash from Democratic supporters and his politically powerful father Anthony J. Lupas. The elder Lupas, an attorney who is solicitor to the Wilkes-Barre Area School Board and a member of the Luzerne County Convention Center Authority, funneled more than $400,000 into his son’s first race for district attorney in 1999.

Then, as now, David Lupas faced Hazleton native Marsilio, whose strong support from his neighbors in southern Luzerne County won him nearly 45 percent of the vote, even though Lupas outspent him by roughly 7-to-1.

Marsilio was a Republican then. But his switch to the Democratic Party in 2004 probably won’t hurt him on his home turf, according to King’s College political science professor David Sosar.

“Be he (Marsilio) a Republican or Democrat, people are going to want to vote for the hometown boy. Lower Luzerne County’s a given. They’re going to vote for him and vote for him strong.”

But Lupas’ expected edge in money to spend, particularly on television advertising, might prove hard to overcome. Wilkes University political science professor Thomas Baldino said Lupas’ ability to raise cash might have discouraged some other prospective judicial candidates. Races for open seats on the county bench, which come with a $149,000 annual salary and a 10-year term, have often drawn numerous candidates. Five local lawyers ran for the last open seat in 2003.

“Those other candidates probably looked at it and thought, ‘Maybe I can’t keep up with the fundraising on this,’” Baldino said.

Lupas said he didn’t know how much he’ll spend on the upcoming campaign or if his father will extend him a sizable loan, as he did in 1999. County campaign finance records show Anthony Lupas loaned his son’s campaign more than $400,000 in 1999. Payments on the loan by Lupas’ campaign committee over the years — raised through campaign donations — had reduced the balance to $227,394 when the committee was disbanded in January. Anthony Lupas forgave the outstanding balance in a letter to the committee.

The first campaign finance reports in the judicial race aren’t due until April. But Ralph Scoda, treasurer for Lupas’ campaign committee, said the candidate collected about $100,000 at a fundraiser early this month. No loans have been made to the committee, Scoda said.

Marsilio acknowledged that he’ll probably be outspent in the race to fill the 10th seat on the county bench, which was recently created by the state. He declined to talk specifics about his campaign spending plans, but said his appeal in southern Luzerne County will play a large role in his campaign. His recent proposal that a judge be assigned full-time to hear cases in Hazleton is part of that strategy.

“We’re going to come out smoking” in the two voting districts that cover that part of the county, he said.

The special nature of a judicial race poses some interesting political, financial and strategic questions for each campaign. Each candidate is cross-filed, that is running for the Republican and the Democratic nominations in May. The race would be over if one candidate should win both nominations.

Should Lupas go full-bore in the next two months, hoping to knock Marsilio out of the race early? Should Marsilio concentrate on wooing his former colleagues in the Republican Party, hoping to stay alive to fight another day in November?

Marsilio campaign manager Gerald Deady said that if Lupas spends heavily this spring, but doesn’t win both primaries, it could “equalize” the campaign finance picture in November:

“Do they want to spend their money now, or should they think twice?”

No, I didn't write it. He did. I'll share it with ya below. The title of the article, I'm thinking, was the idea of the paper, not the author...

TNT DISCLAIMER: The following article is property of the cited newspaper and/or author. I did not write it nor do not make any claims to have written it. Read at your own risk!

Times Leader Mail bag letters from readers
Posted on Sun, Mar. 11, 2007 here

Selenski rips DA for delay tactics, denies he’s seeking publicity

DA David Lupas:

I’ll bet you’ve been laughing to yourself since October. I file a Bill of Particulars motion in October 2006 expecting the judge to make a ruling in a fair amount of time. Here we are in March 2007 with no answers to the motion and you crying about tallying up every single day.

I certainly look the fool. You managed to exploit the system and grab yourself an additional six months to get me to trial and you can gloat that it’s all my fault. In theory you’ve won another battle for yourself, but your rhetoric is transparent, not to mention hypocritical.

You won the reprieve solely on the lax shoulders of Judge Muroski. It appears we’re headed for a systematical slow walk through the system that’s been pre-ordained to allow you to scurry out of the DA’s office leaving the mess you’ve made to the future DA.

You hid behind closed doors in the first trial and you’re going to run from this trial. I often wonder if you would be a formidable opponent if you spent as much time preparing as you do running. I’m certain we’ll never know.

However, I’ve filed to the Superior Court on the escape charge. If it’s denied I won’t be asking the Supreme Court to hear it. It’s then trial time, Dave Lupas. I’m hoping you take the helm for that case (or is it too trivial for somebody of your importance and stature?) Keep in mind what a judge’s instructions are to a jury about an escape charge. It’s going to be interesting to see how a jury reacts once all of the relevant facts come out about October 10, 2003. The escape issue has been an arduous battle between us. Don’t let us all down by handing the case to an assistant to argue at trial.

One last thing, you continuously accuse me of “seeking publicity.” That seems to be your “cure all” statement toward dealing with me. The truth of the matter is that I only speak to the media on occasions that you irritate me to the point of speaking out. (I guess we can say it’s a weakness of mine that I have a short temper when it comes to you.)

Nevertheless, you’re surely aware that I’ve kept my media responses to our local papers. I’ve never once interviewed with the multiple national TV stations that have asked, the Associated Press and other out-of-town newspapers, the book authors, movie producers, magazines, Court TV, and I can go on and on. I’ve always kept Luzerne County issues inside Luzerne County and never relented to the requests of the big media sources. If you continue to run your mouth with this asinine statement that I’m “seeking publicity” I’m going to show you how quickly you can become a national comic instead of just a local one.

------------------------------------------------------------
Hugo Selenski SCI – Dallas Jackson Township

Yeah. You tell 'em. I don't know how this is a publicity stunt when this is the only way to 'communicate' with Lupas without being told to "shut up". Hell, he'll probably ignore it or repeat his publicity mantra yeeeeeeet again. Can Davey Bird say "Broken Record"?????????

Here we go, the Saturday TL article as promised. Sorry it's a day late!!

TNT DISCLAIMER: The following article is property of the cited newspaper and/or author. I did not write it nor do not make any claims to have written it. Read at your own risk!

Need for separate trials detailed
Luzerne County Court- Attorneys for Selenski, Weakley say joint prosecution would trample on clients' rights

By DAVID WEISS dweiss@timesleader.com
Posted on Sat, Mar. 10, 2007 here


WILKES-BARRE – Prosecutors said they could adequately redact statements that Paul Weakley made to police about Hugo Selenski in order to present them to one jury without violating Selenski's rights.

But Selenski's attorneys don't think redactions will stop a jury from thinking the alteration refers to their client. That, they said, is enough reason to have separate trials for the men.

The exchange came in court papers filed Friday in the fight regarding whether Weakley and Selenski should be prosecuted together or separately in the slayings of Michael Kerkowski and Tammy Fassett.

Attorneys for both suspects want separate trials. Prosecutors want one trial for both men.

The main issue complicating the matter revolves around statements Weakley made to police that implicate Selenski. The statements also led to Weakley being charged.

Prosecutors will most likely want to use those statements against Weakley at trial. But there are laws forbidding them from using the statements, in full, against Selenski unless Weakley testifies.

That leaves Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Chester Muroski with the chore of figuring out whether the men should have separate trials so prosecutors can freely use Weakley's statements at his trial, or have one trial using redacted statements of Weakley so they do not violate Selenski's right to a fair trial.

Muroski had prosecutors and defense attorneys file court papers outlining their positions by Friday.

Selenski's attorneys – John Pike, Stephen Menn, and Michael Senape – said their client will be prejudiced if Weakley's incriminating statements are used at a joint trial because, presuming Weakley will not testify, they will be unable to cross-examine him on the credibility of those statements.

That, they said, is a violation of Selenski's right to confront an adverse witness. And it's enough prejudice to warrant separate trials, they said.

But District Attorney David Lupas and his prosecution team of assistants Jacqueline Musto Carroll, Jarrett Ferentino and David Pedri said a prior court ruling indicated it would be OK for them to use such statements at a joint trial.

They would just have to make sure Weakley's reference to Selenski was properly redacted, with a phrase such as "another individual" so Selenski's identity does not become apparent, they said.

But Weakley's attorneys – Joseph Nocito, Paul Galante, Gerald Wassil and Samuel Falcone – said that type of redaction is illegal because the prior court ruling said such a redaction is too obvious and will not fool the jury to believe the "other person" is someone other than the co-defendant. They want a separate trial, too, because they believe prosecutors might want to introduce incriminating statements Selenski made against Weakley.

A hearing on the issue is set for Tuesday.
----------------------------------------------------
David Weiss, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7397.




I wonder how the judge will rule. Hmmmm...


Heeeeeyyyy, the CV finally had something to say! Here it is. Enjoyyy! Ha. (Oh yeah, the same ol' disclaimer applies. I didn't write the following, duh!!)


More News from the Citizens Voice here

— JAMES CONMY


WILKES-BARRE — Legal briefs filed Friday present conflicting views on whether accused murderers Hugo Selenski and Paul Weakley can be fairly prosecuted at a joint trial.

Selenski's attorneys are attempting to thwart Luzerne County District Attorney David Lupas' plan to try the men together for allegedly murdering Tammy Fassett and Michael J. Kerkowski in May 2002. Their bodies were found about 13 months later in a shallow grave on Selenski's former Mount Olivet Road property in Kingston Township.

Luzerne County Judge Chester Muroski is expected to hear arguments on the matter at a scheduled Tuesday hearing.

Lupas' office contends statements Weakley gave to police in 2003 implicate Selenski in Fassett's and Kerkowski's murders and can be used at trial. The office believes audio tapes of those interviews can be played for the jury as long as any reference to Selenski is removed.

Selenski's attorneys Steve Menn, Mike Senape and John Pike disagree. They believe Selenski's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness would be violated because they cannot cross examine the tapes. Muroski has hinted a recent Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision could weigh heavily on his opinion.

In that case, two suspects were charged with a woman's murder. William Housman incriminated co-defendant Beth Markman in statements he originally gave to police and those tapes were played for the jury. Any reference Housman made to Markman was replaced with "the other person."

Markman appealed the use of the tapes and her conviction was overturned.

©The Citizens Voice 2007




Good luck, Hugo. Even though I know you can't see this.

Well, who knows about fair. The following articles discuss the separation of defendants issue. And as far as speedy, so far no luck there...



TNT DISCLAIMER: The following article is property of the cited newspaper and/or author. I did not write it nor do not make any claims to have written it. Read at your own risk!

Tried together or separate?
Judge must sort through the legal issues on how Selenski, Weakley will be tried.
By DAVID WEISS dweiss@timesleader.com

Posted on Fri, Mar. 09, 2007 here

WILKES-BARRE – It might appear as if the battle regarding the prosecution of homicide suspects Hugo Selenski and Paul Weakley is merely a battle over convenience. Should they be tried separately or together?

But there's actually a significant legal and strategic issue that could evolve from the squabble.

Here's the issue:

Investigators said Weakley gave them many statements implicating Selenski in the slayings of Michael Kerkowski and Tammy Fassett. Many of Weakley's own words also led to him being charged in the deaths, too.

That means Luzerne County prosecutors will undoubtedly want to use Weakley's statements as evidence against Weakley at trial, local attorneys said.

But there are also laws forbidding prosecutors from using Weakley's statements against Selenski, attorneys Demetrius Fannick, Ferris Webby and William Ruzzo said.

The issues leave Court of Common Pleas Judge Chester Muroski stuck with making the tough, yet very important decision in deciding whether to have a joint trial for the men.

If they are tried separately, like their attorneys want, it could allow Weakley's jury to hear all of his statements, while preventing Selenski's jury from hearing any of Weakley's words, unless Weakley testifies.

Or, Muroski could have a joint trial, like prosecutors want, and allow them to use a finely tuned, redacted form of Weakley's statements.

"It's not easy," Webby said. "It's not a cut-and-dry thing. It's case by case."

Muroski will try to use a recent state Supreme Court ruling in the case of Beth Ann Markman in making his decision.

The case, which stemmed from a Cumberland County homicide, had many of the same issues that are occurring in the Selenski/Weakley case.

In the Markman case, she and her boyfriend, William Housman, were charged with killing a woman.

They were tried together.

At trial, Housman opted not to testify. But prosecutors played for the jury an audio tape of Housman's confession. The tape was altered so references to Markman were redacted and replaced with the words "other person."

The judge instructed the jury to draw no inferences from that redaction and only use the statement as evidence against Housman.

Markman's attorneys objected. They said playing the tape violated Markman's rights to confrontation because they would not be able to cross-examine Housman on the statements.

The attorneys appealed.

And the Supreme Court in February agreed with them, reversing Markman's conviction.

The Supreme Court based its ruling on a few past cases.

One of those past cases, Bruton v. United States, said Bruton did not get a fair trial because prosecutors, at a joint trial for two defendants, used the unredacted statement of Bruton's co-defendant, who did not testify. The statement incriminated Bruton, but his attorneys were unable to cross-examine that co-defendant. That was a violation of Bruton's right to confront his accusers.

Another case, Richardson v. Marsh, said it was OK to use a statement like the one in Bruton, as long as the statement is redacted to not only eliminate the other defendant's name, but also any reference to his or her existence.

But another case, Gray v. Maryland, said it was illegal to use a redacted statement that contained an obvious deletion, such as a blank space or the word "deleted" when it came to another defendant's name.

So that leaves Muroski with figuring out how to handle the Selenski/Weakley case based on those rulings.

Webby, who is not involved with any of the cases at hand, said the judge will need to know how District Attorney David Lupas intends to handle the Weakley statements in making that decision.

Fannick, Selenski's previous attorney, believes Lupas will argue he "can legally and sufficiently redact (Weakley's) statements so that they are admissible" at a joint trial.

That's important to prosecutors, Ruzzo said.

Even though the jury, at a joint trial, would be instructed to use the statements solely as evidence against Weakley, the statements would surely weigh heavily in the jury's discussion of Selenski, Ruzzo said.

If the redaction in Weakley's statement is obvious, Webby and Ruzzo said, jurors will be able to use their common sense to determine who the "other person" in the statement is.

"Sometimes our jurists think the jury is a machine," Webby said. "They're not. They're human beings."

Prosecutors, Ruzzo said, would probably want the jury to infer that any other person referred to in Weakley's statements and linked to the killings is Selenski.

Ruzzo said defense attorneys will likely argue that separating the two trials is the best way to ensure a fair trial.

If Muroski does so, Fannick sees that as helping Selenski because his jury would not hear any type of implication from Weakley, unless he testifies.

"It's hearsay," Webby said.

Weakley testified at Selenski's first trial in the death of two suspected drug dealers. But Weakley wasn't facing homicide charges then.

Weakley has not confessed to any killings. Police said his changing stories, in part, led to his homicide charges.

Now, facing those charges, Weakley could not be forced to testify because of his constitutional rights. His testimony against Selenski, Fannick said, could rely on prosecutors cutting a plea deal with him to get him on the stand.

"The statements, or Weakley's testimony, are an important piece of evidence against Hugo," Fannick said. "I'm sure they would want the statements in or have Weakley testify against Hugo."

Muroski, at a prior hearing, told Lupas, Selenski's team, led by attorney John Pike, and Weakley's team, led by attorney Joseph Nocito, to file legal briefs indicating how they felt the Markman ruling applied to their cases. They must be filed by today.

Lupas, Pike and Nocito said they would not comment on their specific arguments on the issue.

"All that will be handled in court," Lupas said.

--------------------------------------------
David Weiss, a Times Leader staff writer, may be reached at 831-7397.



TNT DISCLAIMER: The following article is property of the cited newspaper and/or author. I did not write it nor do not make any claims to have written it. Read at your own risk!


Attorneys fight over Selenski/Weakley trial
By DAVID WEISS dweiss@timesleader.com

Posted on Fri, Mar. 09, 2007 here

WILKES-BARRE – - Prosecutors said they could adequately redact any statements Paul Weakley made to police about Hugo Selenski in order to present them to one jury without violating Selenski's rights.

But Selenski's attorneys don't think any redaction will stop a jury from thinking the alteration refers to their client. That, they said, is enough reason to have separate trials for the men.

The exchange came in court papers filed Friday in the fight over whether Weakley and Selenski should be prosecuted together or separately in the slayings of Michael Kerkowski and Tammy Fassett.

Attorneys for both suspects want separate trials. Prosecutors want one trial for both men.

The main issue complicating the matter revolves around statements Weakley made to police implicating Selenski. The statements also led to Weakley being charged in the deaths.

Prosecutors will most likely want to use those statements against Weakley at trial. But there are laws forbidding them from using the statements, in full, against Selenski, unless Weakley testifies.

That leaves Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas Judge Chester Muroski with the chore of figuring out whether the men should have separate trials so prosecutors can freely use Weakley's statements at his trial, or have one trial using redacted statements of Weakley so they do not violate the Selenski's right to a fair trial.

For more on the debate read tomorrow's Times Leader.



Yeaaaah, you know I'll be reading tomorrow's TL. It's a joke that the DA's office thinks they can 'redact' the affected statements as needed so as not to taint the jury- come onnnn!! Who the hell will they think the other person will be? No, certainly not the other defendant!! Riiiiiiiiiight....