Opinion ID: 802339
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Bergrin’s Opening Statement

Text: 16 Opening statements began on October 17, 2011. Proceeding pro se with standby counsel, Bergrin told the jury that the evidence would prove he “never wanted, … never expected, …never believed … that one hair on Kemo’s head would be hurt.” (Id. at 648.) Instead, as he explained to the jury, he had simply acted as a zealous advocate on Baskerville’s behalf: “[W]hen I represented – was called … to represent William Baskerville, who was accused of a criminal offense, the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution said that I had to represent him, that he deserved to be represented effectively. And that’s all I ever did in this case.” (Id.) Thus, although Bergrin acknowledged calling Curry and informing him that Kemo was the confidential witness, he characterized that call as part of his legal duty to represent Baskerville and denied any malicious motives. 14 Bergrin spoke similarly in explaining the Pozo Plot to the jury, stating: Let me tell you about the facts of Richard Pozo which will come out in this case. Richard Pozo was dealing cocaine. He sent a car with a bunch of cocaine in it from Elizabeth, … where he was living, to Texas. The car began to be investigated. The car was dropped off in the driveway of somebody’s house. While the car is being investigated, Richard 14 Correspondingly, Bergrin claimed during the course of trial that he never participated in a meeting with Curryorganization members in which he allegedly implied that Kemo should be killed by saying, among other things, “No Kemo, no case.” 17 Pozo comes to see me and says: I think I have a problem. I believe they detected cocaine in a car that I had sent to Texas. Will you represent me? There is no informant involved. We have absolutely … no idea whatsoever who any informants are. The name Pedro Ramon doesn’t even fit into the equation. We have no clue who the informant is, he has no clue who any informant is. And I question him in front of Peter Willis and another outstanding attorney by the name of John Whipple in Texas, and that’s borne out here in this particular case. I never say to [Pozo]: Let’s get rid of the informant. Because what does it matter? It doesn’t matter. I would never say that because it has no impact, has no effect and I would never say that to this type of individual. (Id. at 691-92.) Believing that Bergrin had made “various door- opening assertions during his opening statement” the government filed a letter-motion the next day, asking the District Court to reconsider its evidentiary ruling excluding the Esteves Plot evidence. 15 (D.N.J. ECF no. 09-369, doc. no. 263, at 1.) The Court declined. 15 More specifically, the government argued that Bergrin “exploited [the] Court’s [evidentiary] rulings, and abused his status as a pro se litigant, by testifying in his opening statement.” (D.N.J. ECF no. 09-369, doc. no. 263, at 18