CLEARFIELD – A mistrial was declared Monday in the case against an Osceola Mills man accused of soliciting inappropriate photos from whom he believed were two underage girls.
Reed Eugene Meeker Jr., 39, is charged by Clearfield state police with criminal solicitation – child pornography, a felony of the third-degree.
Court documents detail how the investigation began on July 12 after members of a child predator exploitation organization had a multi-day text conversation with Meeker.
Meeker allegedly attempted to solicit photos of two people whom he believed were underage girls, as well as described sex acts that he wanted to perform on them and them to perform on each other.
State police were provided screenshots of the conversations with photographs, where Meeker’s face and private area were reportedly visible.
He was identified by his Megan’s Law photo.
In an interview July 26, Meeker admitted that he attempted to solicit sexual photographs of two underage girls whom he believed were under the age of 12.
Following the opening statements of District Attorney Ryan Sayers on Monday, Meeker indicated he was not prepared to give opening remarks as he needed standby counsel.
At this point, Judge Paul Cherry had court personnel take jurors back to their respective jury rooms. Afterwards, he reminded Meeker that he’d previously opted not to have standby counsel at trial.
“You fired your standby counsel,” Cherry stated, noting he’d refused two different attorneys with the public defender’s office.
Sayers confirmed that was correct, noting Meeker had also filed multiple motions seeking disqualification of the judge and recusal of the prosecutor and was just in court pro se last week.
Cherry advised Meeker they would proceed with the trial, and when jurors were brought back into the courtroom and Meeker was asked if he would give an opening statement, he again commented that he wanted representation.
Once jurors were returned to their jury rooms, Cherry asked Meeker if he recalled jury selection in February, at which point he waived his right to counsel.
He said the court had also asked if he wanted counsel on standby for trial, and he did not.
“Now, we get to day-of trial and you want standby counsel,” Cherry said. Meeker responded, saying he wanted standby counsel but was refusing anyone from the public defender’s office.
Cherry explained that the court appoints public defenders as standby counsel and that he (Meeker) does not get to “pick and choose” his representation.
Meeker argued one attorney with the public defender’s office wasn’t going to help him, and instead, was actually going to help the commonwealth, and the other didn’t know anything about his case.
Cherry disagreed with the first part of the argument as he’s very familiar with the attorney in question and knows he serves his clients well.
So far as the other public defender not being familiar with the case, Cherry said he wouldn’t have information as Meeker had opted to proceed pro se at jury selection.
Sayers argued that Meeker was playing games with the court, and stated the commonwealth was ready to proceed.
When Cherry advised that court would proceed, and that Meeker could either proceed with his opening or they could proceed with the commonwealth’s case, Sayers requested some explanation be given to jurors so they didn’t think anyone’s constitutional rights were being violated.
Meeker then claimed he’d sent correspondence to the public defender’s office requesting a specific attorney as standby counsel.
Sayers said although he hated to keep the jury waiting, he thought Cherry should see if he could either confirm or deny Meeker’s claims.
When Cherry returned to the courtroom, he said Meeker had sent correspondence Feb. 2, asking for assistance with obtaining contents of the state police’s USB drive so he could view it, and there was no mention of needing standby counsel.
Cherry advised Meeker the court would proceed with the trial, and there would be no further mention of representation because he’d already opted to represent himself.
Meeker said he wouldn’t comply with the court’s instruction and continued to demand that he is constitutionally entitled to representation.
Again, Cherry explained to Meeker that he doesn’t get to “pick and choose” his standby counsel, and that it’s a decision for the court.
Then, Meeker said he was declaring a mistrial because he’s entitled to an attorney.
Cherry advised Meeker he can only request a mistrial, and only he—as judge—can declare a mistrial and that Meeker needs to “re-read the rules.”
At this point, Meeker asked for a mistrial and indicated he wanted to look into possibly privately hiring an attorney, and when Cherry asked what the odds were of that actually happening, he said, “I don’t know.”
Although Cherry believed Meeker was playing games, he declared a mistrial and warned Meeker that the case would be rescheduled for jury selection April 6, and from there go to trial whether he had an attorney or not.
Meeker requested the court appoint standby counsel until he finds an attorney and for trial in the event he’s unable to find private representation. His request was granted, effective immediately.
Per pervious reports, Meeker pleaded guilty to sexual assault, aggravated indecent assault, two counts of indecent assault and two counts of corruption of minors in Centre County in 2005.
At that time, he was determined to be a sexually-violent predator.
This is Meeker’s second offense and if convicted, he is looking at a mandatory sentence of 25 years.
