Opinion ID: 2709205
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Kidd’s waiver of counsel on retrial

Text: After the remand, Kidd filed a pro se motion seeking ap‐ pointment of counsel other than Strunck. At a July 1992 hearing, Kidd asked the court to appoint “Dan Webb or Jen‐ ner & Block” as his new attorney. When the court asked why, Kidd said that his was a capital case and that he would “prefer for one of them to represent me.” Strunck worked for the public defender’s office and Kidd “would rather for any‐ one outside of the office to handle this case now.” The court told Kidd that it would not appoint Webb or Jenner & Block to represent him, as he had “very competent” counsel. Kidd 1 In this unrelated case, Kidd was ultimately convicted of arson and four counts of murder. No. 12‐2614 3 responded that the public defender “did a well good job on this case,” but continued, “[a]ll I am saying is that I feel that it would be my best interest, I would feel more secure and comfortable, you know—I don’t want to have to go back on death row.” The court told Kidd that Webb or Jenner & Block would have to represent him pro bono and then tabled the issue. Ultimately, Kidd was unable to find private coun‐ sel. Kidd’s case was set to go to trial in September 1994— more than two years after the remand. On August 23, 1994, Strunck told the court that Kidd wanted to proceed pro se. As the colloquy that followed is critical to our waiver analy‐ sis, we set it out at some length: STRUNCK: Mr. Kidd has also informed me af‐ ter a recent jail visit that it’s his desire in this matter to go, pro se. … Obviously, the relationship, I believe, goes back approximately 10 years. Now, I have explained to him that absolutely, he has a right to go pro se. It is not—probably not in his best interest. That it goes without saying, that Leonard Kidd is not a licensed at‐ torney, in the State of Illinois or any other state nor does he have any formal legal education, legal training nor has he tried any cases. Basically, Judge, I have informed him that this is obviously not in his best interest to proceed, pro se. He wishes to address the Court on that issue. 4 No. 12‐2614 Your Honor, obviously, he has a right to do as he pleases. COURT: It would be disruptive or [a] hin‐ drance to an orderly trial. Go ahead, Mr. Kidd? KIDD: Yeah, I feel it is in my best interest to go, pro se. COURT: Well, of course, I would disagree. I think you would be absolutely and totally fool‐ ish to undertake this trial without a good law‐ yer, an experienced lawyer in this case. A law‐ yer who has already [fought] one trial for you and knows the case and has always been ex‐ tremely vigorous and energetic and conscien‐ tious in trying to defend you. You know very well that you can receive the death penalty on this case. You were for 20 years in the Illinois Department of Corrections through natural life to the death penalty, and you would be called upon to make your own arguments, to make your own objections, gath‐ er your own legal written instructions at the end of the case, to introduce evidence. You have, I think, a good idea from your trials, all that it takes to conduct a trial, to conduct a defense. And you would be called upon to do so. KIDD: Yeah. No. 12‐2614 5 COURT: Well—so, I really urge you not to try to undertake to defend yourself, but to stay with your lawyer. KIDD: It looks like that’s my only way out. It looks like my best way out, though. COURT: Think about it again and see if you still have the same thought on September 7th, which is the trial date. It is going to go ahead on September 7th, whether you are your own lawyer or you wish Mr. Strunck to keep de‐ fending you. But particularly in this case, which is not a simple case, requires presentation of a good cross examination, involves the death penalty, which calls all kinds of things that you know about since you went through this trial al‐ ready. I have real doubt whether you can do it your‐ self. KIDD: People sit right there on the stand and lied to you. I do it myself. I ain’t going to go through what I did. COURT: We’ll see. You better rethink it. We’ll see you September 7th. Kidd then asked for copies of “the transcript” and a court order for the law library. When the government discussed changes to its witness list, Kidd asked whether he needed to prepare a list as well. He told the court that he was definitely going to add witnesses. The court then gave the parties a 6 No. 12‐2614 deadline; Kidd said the date was “cutting it short” but he would try his best to meet it. When the court pointed out that it would be difficult for Kidd to meet deadlines while in custody, Kidd responded, “[b]ut sometimes you have no choice, when people sit right there on the stand and lie, too.” The court followed up with Kidd’s pro se request a week later, on August 31, 1994: COURT: Mr. Kidd, do you still have that in mind, or are you agreeable to having Mr. Strunck continue to represent you? KIDD: I still have that in mind. COURT: You realize that this case is going ahead to trial next week, so you would have to be ready to represent yourself next week? Do you understand that? KIDD: Yes. COURT: … You’re charged with ten counts of murder and a count of arson, aggravated ar‐ son, I believe. And I must tell you then the na‐ ture of those charges, which I think you al‐ ready know since you went through a trial on them. Secondly, you should also know that on the murder charges, the minimum is 20 years, and the maximum is the death penalty. You under‐ stand that that’s the minimum and the maxi‐ mum. 20 years is the minimum; the death pen‐ alty is the maximum. No. 12‐2614 7 If there’s a penitentiary sentence, the sentences can run concurrent, together at the same time, or consecutive, one to follow the other. You also must be informed, and I’m sure you already know, that you have a right to counsel, and if you are indigent, without money, coun‐ sel, Mr. Strunck, the public defender, will be appointed for you. Do you understand? KIDD: Yeah. COURT: Now, the other thing, as I think I mentioned to you before, if we go to trial on this case and you act as your own lawyer, you’re going to be responsible for your de‐ fense. You’re going to be responsible to present evidence according to the rules of evidence and the rules of procedure. You’re going to be responsible for cross‐ examining witnesses against you. You’re going to be responsible for bringing in appropriate instructions that you might want, legal instruc‐ tions. All the kinds of things you saw your lawyer do during the first trial, that’s your re‐ sponsibility. You can’t order Mr. Strunck to do this for you and then order him to sit down, and you’ll car‐ ry on from there. You’re responsible for your own defense. That means presenting evidence, it means cross‐examining, it means introducing possibly exhibits into the case, it means having 8 No. 12‐2614 legal instructions at the end of the case. Do you understand that? KIDD: Yes. COURT: And knowing all those things, do you still wish to represent yourself? KIDD: Yeah. The court then allowed Kidd to proceed pro se, with Strunck as standby counsel. Kidd was again convicted of all charges. At Kidd’s request, Strunck represented him during the penalty phase of his capital case.