Opinion
S3 19-CR-497 (NSR) (01) (02)
11-24-2021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. NACHMAN HELBRANS and MAYER ROSNER, Defendants.
ORDER
NELSON S. ROMÁN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
On this day, the Court received an email from a third party with an alleged request purportedly submitted on behalf of Defendants Nachman Helbrans and Mayer Rosner (collectively, “Defendants”) in the above-captioned cause. From February 2021 to October 18, 2021, Defendants represented themselves pro se until the Court revoked such status and appointed counsel to represent them.
“Although criminal defendants possess both the right to appear pro se and to appointed counsel, ordinarily those rights cannot both be exercised at the same time.” Ennis v. LeFevre, 560 F.2d 1072, 1075 (2d Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 976 (1978). “[A] criminal defendant has no constitutional or statutory right to represent himself as co-counsel with his own attorney.” United States v. Tutino, 883 F.2d 1125, 1141 (2d Cir. 1989) (citing Ennis, 560 F.2d at 1075).
Therefore, the Court will not entertain any alleged requests submitted by third parties purportedly acting on behalf of Defendants. Any of Defendants' requests to the Court must be submitted through their legal counsel, not through other third parties nor filed pro se. See United States v. Tracy, 989 F.2d 1279, 1285 (1st Cir. 1993) (“A district court enjoys wide latitude in managing its docket and can require represented parties to present motions through counsel.”). The submitted alleged request will be forwarded to counsel of record.