Opinion ID: 2674690
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Trial and Guilty Plea

Text: On the scheduled trial date, Kerr appeared with Wells as standby counsel. Before jury selection, the district court stated that it had previously “advised [Kerr] of the disadvantages of representing [himself]” and inquired of Kerr whether that remained his intention. Kerr confirmed that it was. The court cautioned him that self-representation was “very difficult” and that, despite his pro se status and lack of legal training, he was required to follow the court’s instructions and comply with the rules of evidence and procedure. When Kerr renewed his request to subpoena three witnesses—his former attorney, the former interim United States Attorney, and the Chief Judge of the Northern District—the court stated that it would issue the subpoenas only if Kerr explained how their testimony was relevant to the pending criminal charge. Kerr demurred, claiming that he should not be required to disclose his theory of defense. Again, the court flagged Kerr’s lack of legal training, explaining, inter alia, that any testimony of these witnesses would “certainly” be hearsay and the fact that his former attorney represented Kerr in the matter did not make 6 11‐5462‐cr(L) United States v. Kerr the attorney “a witness with any relevant testimony to offer in this case.” The court later urged Kerr to consult with Wells concerning issues of jury selection. On April 14, the case proceeded to trial at which Kerr selected a jury in consultation with Wells; gave an opening statement premised on his theories that the AUSA committed perjury, the government destroyed evidence, and he was prevented from calling his chosen witnesses; extensively cross-examined government witnesses; and made relevant objections. Upon the close of the government’s evidence on April 16, however, Kerr informed the court that he intended to plead guilty to the charge. The following exchange took place: THE COURT: Now, have you agreed to allow Mr. Wells to represent you in this matter, for this -- THE DEFENDANT: Yes, your Honor. THE COURT: -- in this capacity? Because there are questions that I’m going to need to ask him and he needs to advise you and hopefully he’s talked to you about the Sentencing Guidelines . . . . THE DEFENDANT: Yes. Appellant App’x at 96. Following this colloquy, the district court informed Kerr that it was “going to at this point accept the fact that Mr. Wells is your attorney.” The court conducted a change of plea hearing that same day.2 Kerr testified that he was not under the care of a doctor or psychiatrist and that his ability to understand the proceeding was not impaired. Attorney Wells also stated that he was satisfied that Kerr’s plea was given freely and voluntarily. Based upon these representations and Kerr’s other responses during its Rule 11 inquiry, the court determined that he was “competent and 2 Although Kerr did not plead guilty pursuant to a formal plea agreement, he agreed during the change of plea hearing to withdraw his December 2009 interlocutory appeal from the denial of his suppression motion and motion to dismiss. 7 11‐5462‐cr(L) United States v. Kerr capable of entering an informed plea.” As to the factual basis for the plea, the government explained that its proof at trial had shown that the Customs and Border Protection officers discovered pills containing MDMA in two locations of Kerr’s vehicle and that, in total, the recovered pills weighed 2,068 grams. Kerr confirmed this assessment of the evidence, further explaining that he had entered into an agreement with an unidentified individual whereby the individual would place something in his parked vehicle and then, in exchange for $5,000, Kerr would drive the vehicle from Canada to New York. After accepting the plea, the district court told Kerr that the Probation Department would interview him in connection with his presentence report and that “Wells can be there with you if you like, that’s up to you and him.”