UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
November 19, 2009
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF,
CARLOS A. KAMBER, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: J. Phil Gilbert District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on defendant Carlos A. Kamber's second motion for a speedy trial (Doc. 28), motion for dismissal of the indictment (Doc. 29), motion for a presentence investigation report (Doc. 30), motion for a subpoena (Doc. 31) and motion for leave to file affirmative defenses (Doc. 32). Kamber filed these motions pro se, although he is represented by counsel, as reflected in the Court's November 10, 2009, order appointing new counsel (Doc. 26) and the appointment of attorney Gary Milone (Doc. 34).
A defendant does not have a right to file his own motions when he is represented by counsel. See Hayes v. Hawes, 921 F.2d 100, 102 (7th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). "Representation by counsel and self-representation are mutually exclusive." Cain v. Peters, 972 F.2d 748, 750 (7th Cir. 1992). So-called "hybrid representation" confuses and extends matters at trial and in other proceedings and, therefore, it is forbidden. See United States v. Oreye, 263 F.3d 669, 672-73 (7th Cir. 2001). The Court may strike as improper any such pro se motions. See, e.g., United States v. Gwiazdzinski, 141 F.3d 784, 787 (7th Cir. 1998). The Court hereby ORDERS that Kamber's motions (Docs. 28-32) be STRICKEN.
Prior to the motions stricken by this order, Kamber had filed two pro se motions while represented by counsel. The Court has explained to him once that he cannot filed his own motions while he is represented by counsel, yet he persists in filing his own motions. The Court WARNS Kamber that if he continues to make further pro se filings while he is represented by counsel, the Court will instruct the Clerk of Court to refuse to accept them for filing.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.