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.