Trial Musings 1: A Risky Defense Strategy

Two days of actual trial completed. And my initial impression of the trial is as stated in my header above: "...it plods towards it's inevitable conclusion."

There have been some mild surprises, though. Here's what's raised my eyebrow thus far:

1. A "Risky" Defense Strategy?

In his 15 minute opening statement, Harlow defense attorney D'Andrea outlined the defense strategy:

“Our defense is simple, Harlow didn’t do it,” D’Andrea told the jury during his opening statement. “You’ll hear that Grant Roy and Sean Lockhart hated Bryan Kocis; they even wanted him dead. They (Kerekes and Cuadra) had a male escort business, a male prostitution business. It was money that motivated Joseph Kerekes; he prostituted his lover Harlow to make money.”

No surprise here as to Joe. I predicted after Joe's plea that since Harlow was free now to blame the entire murder on Joe, he would do so with a vengeance. Harlow would claim that his participation in the murder was "forced" by Joe, for whom there exists much evidence of a violent and controlling temperment (more on that later). And the trial has thus far born that out: "Cuadra’s lawyers, Joseph D’Andrea and Paul Walker, are suggesting to the jury that three other people had more to gain from Kocis’ death, focusing on Kerekes." [Italics mine]

Back on PC's blog, I initially called the dragging of Sean and Grant into the defense case as a "mistake." After further musing, however, I am now downgrading that call to "risky." My opinion as to the downside of the strategy remains: By claiming Sean and Grant were the murderers, when the prosecution can simply cite the Harlow Apology and demolish that theory with metaphysical certainty, D'Andrea and Walker risk looking like foolhardy conspiracy theorists in front of the jury, thus damaging their credibility.

But there is an upside to the strategy, I had not grasped at first. Note that D'andrea states that he's only going to show Sean and Grant had motive to kill. Motive, and nothing more (just as well, as there is nothing more).

By making Sean and Grant's "motive" part of their case, they now have a golden opportunity to attack the victim, Bryan Kocis. Horrific and inhumane acts committed by Bryan Kocis over the years towards Brent Corrigan, ie, the manipulations, death threats, legal harrassment, slander, libel, employment of hired goons, etc etc etc... all becomes relevant evidence. All show that Sean and Grant indeed had "motive."

The prosecution may try to object to some of this, but I'm not sure how successful they will be. Bryan's many atrocious acts against Sean and Grant do indeed go directly to motive. I think Judge Olszewski will be forced to let most of it in...which will definitely influence the jury away from harshness during sentencing.

But will the benefit outweigh the risk? Time will tell...