Opinion ID: 4510144
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Pretrial Complaints about Counsel

Text: After being indicted, Diaz represented that he could not afford counsel, and a magistrate judge assigned Criminal Justice Act (CJA) counsel, Deborah Albert-Heise to represent him. A few months later, however, Ms. Albert-Heise accepted a position as an assistant district attorney and withdrew. The District Court then appointed Joseph O’Brien on July 13, 2016. Dissatisfied with O’Brien, Diaz requested new counsel in an August letter to the Clerk of Court. Diaz stated that O’Brien pressured him to plead guilty, did not accept Diaz’s advice on submitting pretrial motions, and failed to turn over discovery to him. In response to Diaz’s pro se motion, the 3 District Court promptly held a hearing to inquire into the problems with the representation. At the hearing, the Court asked both O’Brien and Diaz about the issues and attempted to explain to Diaz that O’Brien was an excellent lawyer. Diaz still insisted that he wanted the Court to appoint new counsel, and the District Court appointed Joseph Kalinowski on August 29, 2016. On December 5, 2016, Diaz wrote to the District Court to request certain documents and informed the Court that he had not received anything from counsel. In response, the Court issued an order acknowledging receipt of Diaz’s letter and directing the Clerk to forward a copy of the letter to counsel for a response. The record does not reflect any response from counsel. On February 7, 2017, Diaz again wrote to the Court to request assistance obtaining discovery and advised that he was concerned about Kalinowski’s failure to communicate with him. In response to this letter, on February 14, 2017, the District Court ordered Kalinowski to file a response to Diaz by February 21. Kalinowski never complied with that order. On February 22, following Kalinowski’s failure to comply with the February 21 deadline, Diaz requested new counsel. In a pro se letter, he wrote that Kalinowski “fails to answer my letters and requests for discovery materials. . . . I am requesting that you consider appointing me new counsel.” App. at 94. The Court did not then seek any additional information from Kalinowski or Diaz, nor did it inquire further or schedule any hearing to address the request to replace Kalinowski. 4 One month after the request for new counsel, on March 24, Kalinowski filed a motion for continuance in which he represented: The Defendant has submitted a letter to the Court which is being considered as a request for new counsel. After a meeting between counsel and the Defendant on March 23, 2017, all issues between counsel and the Defendant have been resolved and the Defendant wishes to continue with counsel’s representation. App. at 102–03. The District Court granted the continuance without commenting on Diaz’s request for new counsel. Diaz and Kalinowski then appeared together on April 7 for a pretrial conference. At the conference, neither Diaz nor Kalinowski raised any issue related to the request or the representation. Ten days after the pretrial conference, on April 17, Diaz again wrote to the District Court complaining of Kalinowski’s failure to adequately represent him or to provide discovery. In the letter, he reminded the Court that Kalinowski never responded to the Court’s February 14 order and again stated that Kalinowski neither responded to Diaz’s letters nor visited him. On June 29, Diaz wrote to the Court complaining of Kalinowski’s failure to respond, repeated motions for continuance, and failure to provide discovery. Diaz did not, however, renew his request for new counsel either before or at trial. On August 16, the case proceeded to trial with Kalinowski representing Diaz. 5