Jean Pierre Orlewicz & Daniel Sorensen: Orlewicz Sorenson new trial (photo)
By Clarencia Cynrae on April 13th, 2009Jean Pierre Orlewicz was convicted in 2008. There are post conviction hearings for Orlewicz, of Plymouth Township. The judge in charge of Orlewicz banned the press and public from attending on April 24 2009. The Detroit Free Press asked the judge to lift his ban.
The hearing is on Orlewicz’s request for a new trial, made via his lawyer, Elizabeth Jacobs. Orlewicz was tried for the murder of Daniel Sorensen in Nov 2007.Orlewicz was convicted. Orlewicz lured Daniel Sorensen, 26, into a homein Canton on Nov 7 2007. Jean Orlewicz (photo at link) slit Sorensen’s throat and also gave him multiple stab wounds.
Please click here for more recent posts.
mobile device
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Jean Orlewicz is the equivalent to a minor who can be rehabilitated.
The jurors were probably biased due the news coverage unless maybe only the eastern United States heard the details and other parts of the country didn’t. The press is important, but the news should broadcast objective facts and not immediately use terminology such as “thrill kill.”
The judge made mistakes; she wouldn’t allow evidence from professionals who would state that the defendant is a caring individual who wouldn’t kill again. She should have allowed witnesses to testify regarding Orlewicz’s character. For example, opinions from former girlfriends and about his caring personality such as when he helped people having trouble with their boat should have been permitted. Regardless of the fact that Sorensen’s character isn’t on trial, both Orlewicz’s and Sorensen’s personality is relevant to the case. I think that he was a minor who was genuinely afraid of Sorensen who made prior threats against Orlewicz and his friends and family. I don’t think Sorensen is a sex offender though; my friends who lived near me back when I was a kid/teen went out with 17 year old guys when they were 14 or 15. However, Sorensen’s prior criminal record pertaining to possible acts of violence should have been admissible. I think Jean Pierre Orlewicz was fearful of Sorensen’s possible organized crime connections, so he panicked and tried to cover up the traces. Sorensen repeatedly pointed a gun at the heads of Orlewicz and his friends. Video games such as Hitman and Grand Theft Auto which he did play often could perhaps desensitize minors and adolescents, especially male ones. Sending this minor with no prior offenses to prison would be a waste. I believe Jean Orlewicz has potential to go to college and lead a productive life and is someone who would never kill anyone unless it was in is self defense.
April 24th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
did jp get a new trial? if so when is it?
April 25th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
I don’t know. I do agree with some of the arguments Jennifer made. I do believe that there’s something more that his previous trial is missing. But then again, I also am worried about that no emotional response especially after majoring in psychology (which was why i was first drawn to this case). He’s smart and calculating from what I have noticed and did not show any emotion except when his dad and a co-worker of his dad testified. Was that real emotion or were they forced in order to make those on the jury sympathize with him? We can see this same calculating techniques while he was on trial when he would personally look over to the jury (which might have been his lawyer’s idea, but he didn’t seem to understand what he was doing at all in this case). I do believe he did it on purpose along with his friends. Was it a “thrill kill”? I don’t think so. Should there be a retrial with the plea of insanity? Absolutely. Will he win? No. But I seriously think these other kids are getting off pretty easily for their parts in the killing, which scares me as well especially when Dan’s parents are falling over Alex. Remember, he was there for the killing and I believe he would have done just what Jean Pierre did. I’m sorry some of this seems harsh. At first, I would have found Jean Pierre innocent, but as the trial went on, he should be behind bars. Not for life though.
April 26th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
C’mon. Jennifer you are a moron. Did you even watch the trial. People like you have a problem with authority and will generally side against it every time. This is a perfect example. The evidence is overwhelming. So what, JP helped a guy on a boat once, big deal. Convicted felons can have some good qualities, but I don’t think a minor detail such as that should have any bearing on a murder trial. Anyways plenty of his friends testified and had plenty to say about his character and his obsession to commit the perfect crime and kill someone. What else do you want. On top of that how ironic is it that the scene of the killing was already prepared for murder. Do you really believe that bullshit extortion story JP gave that contradicted the testimonies of all the other witnesses. And as if I haven’t proven my point enough. Alex, his accomplice, took a plea bargain for 20-30 years. You really have to realize you are screwed when that is your only option. I think you, Jennifer, just get a thrill out of being some kind of conspiracy theorist or your very poorly informed on the matter. People like you disgust me and because of like minded people the US is prohibiting our judicial branch from acting effectively. It’s amazing, the rules and regulations we have to protect cold blooded criminals. If JP was to walk it would be a very sad day.
April 27th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
This case has nothing to do with a conspiracy theory and I’ve never posted on websites like this before nor do care about conspiracy theories. I emphatically believe Orlewicz would not kill again and is not a serial killer after watching him speak on TV and reading facts that surfaced on the Internet that weren’t presented in court. Furthermore, I have the utmost respect for authority. Generalizing that I don’t have respect for authority is ridiculous and false. Every case is different and has to be considered that way. For example, Melissa Huckaby should get the death penalty. I think those planning quotes were taken out of context. People refer to movies in general about that topic. I couldn’t bare the thought of a minor going to prison for the rest of his life. Regardless of not showing remorse at the time, Jean Orlewicz is a minor who wouldn’t kill again which is a fact professionals would state.
May 8th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Orlewicz lost the trial when Alex took 20-30 years. No one who could make an honest self defense claim would take that deal. When the jury heard that he was convicted it’s that simple. Does he deserve another trial with a new defense? No because if you watched him during the trial there was nothing he was ice cold during it. That alone is scary because to be honest I though of Dennis Rader in court calmly talking about his crimes. I strongly believe that if JP was to ever be freed he would kill multiple times if given the chance. He has great potential to become a serial killer.
As for him being a minor he was 17 at the time I might agree if he was younger and if his friend hadn’t taken 20-30 years instead of sticking with the self defense claim. This was 1st degree premeditated murder regardless of him being a minor 1st degree premeditated murder means you lose the right the exist in society permanently. It’s that simple.
June 24th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
People always say that the judge makes so many mistakes, and of course they do sometimes. But, what they let the jury hear is not really up to them. They have rules of evidence to follow. It’s not just there personal decision to let something be heard or come into evidence. For example, in my state, you cannot use past violence to prove you used self defense because the person is dangerous unless you can prove you actually knew of the past violence. I believe this is why the judge did not let the jury hear about the protective orders against Daniel. They could not prove Jean knew about them to know he was dangerous.
June 27th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
I do hope JP gets a new trial, as he deserves. The judge gave biased, unfair, and incomplete instructions to the jury. In addition, the judge disallowed key witnesses and testimony. All of this equates to an unfair trial. One of this judges other cases was recently granted a new trial for the unfair and incomplete jury instructions. In this country, we are all entitled to, and deserve a fair, unbiased trial. We should all be concerned if anyone, no matter the crime of which they stand accused, is denied a fair trial. I also believe JP should have been charged as a minor. Also, the prosecutor labeling this case a “thrill kill” from the get-go was nothing less than jury pool tainting. Best of luck to JP. Thoughts and prayers to the family and friends of all concerned.
July 25th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
My comment is plain and simple. Those who think JP Orlewicz wouldn’t kill, again, are naive. I have personal knowledge of his viciousness and cold-heartedness. Lock him up and throw away the key!
July 27th, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Quoting Brandon: “It’s amazing, the rules and regulations we have to protect cold blooded criminals.”
Brandon, the “rules and regulations” this country has are not put there to protect cold blooded criminals. They are there to protect us all. Period.
And Nikko1, with all due respect, your “personal knowledge” of JP’s viciousness and cold-heartedness does not justify an unfair trial for JP. We are all entitled to a fair trial. The judge gave incomplete and biased instructions to the jury and disallowed critical expert testimony. Perhaps the verdict would have been the same if proper instructions were given and after expert testimony. We should all be concerned that any person should spend the rest of their life in jail without exercising their right to a fair trial.
July 27th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
Addendum to above:
…….just as a convicted person on death row is entitled to exhaust all available appeals before being put to death. It is their right.