Order Denying Motion for Access to Word Processor — United States v. Kaeding (Dkt. 188, D. Minn.)

Summary

An order denying the pro se defendant's motion for an order for access to a word processor (Dkt. No. 186) in United States v. Harold Bennie Kaeding, Case No. 21-CR-169 (ECT/JFD), in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, filed February 26, 2024 as Doc. 188 and signed by United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty. A footnote notes that standby counsel has filed Kaeding's motions since Kaeding elected to represent himself on August 14, 2023. The court denies the request and encourages Kaeding to confer with standby counsel about which documents counsel can file for him.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD          Doc. 188     Filed 02/26/24     Page 1 of 3




                        UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA


 United States of America,                            Case. No. 21-CR-169 (ECT/JFD)

                      Plaintiff,
                                                   ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
 v.                                                ACCESS TO WORD PROCESSOR

 Harold Bennie Kaeding,

                      Defendant.


       This case is before the Court on pro se Defendant Harold Bennie Kaeding’s Motion

for Order for Access to Word Processor. (Dkt. No. 186.) The motion is denied.

       Mr. Kaeding is charged with wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money

laundering for allegedly submitting fraudulent applications for COVID-19 relief loans he

was not entitled to receive. (See Superseding Indictment 8–11, Dkt. No. 105.) Mr. Kaeding

cannot be housed in a typical pretrial detention facility because of his poor health, but his

risk of flight and danger to the community counsels against his release, so he is temporarily

housed at the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota. (Order Regarding

Detention Placement 3, Dkt. No. 109; Redacted Order 19, Dkt. No. 176.) His trial is

scheduled to begin on April 15, 2024 before the Hon. Eric C. Tostrud. (Trial Notice and

Final Pretrial Order 1, Dkt. No. 184.)

       Judge Tostrud recently issued an order explaining how he expects to receive trial

documents. (Id. at 1–2.) It provides:

       All documents must be filed electronically and served on all parties. Two
       courtesy copies must be delivered to the chambers of Judge Tostrud . . . .The
                                             1

       CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD          Doc. 188     Filed 02/26/24    Page 2 of 3




       courtesy copies should be ECF-stamped; three-hole punched; unstapled;
       double-sided, if feasible; and if voluminous, appropriately tabbed and
       organized within binders. The list of exhibits, proposed voir dire and
       proposed jury instructions must also be submitted by email, in word-
       processing format . . . .

(Id.) Last week, Mr. Kaeding filed this Motion, which requests not just a word-processor

but specifically an “air-gapped computer with word-processing and spreadsheet software”

that Mr. Kaeding may keep in his room at FMC-Rochester from now until the end of trial.

(Mot. Order Access Word-Processor 3, Dkt. No. 186.) He also asks for the Court to provide

“a color printer, a supply of paper, binders, 3-hole paper punch, indexing tabs, Post-It notes

and highlighters.” (Id.) Finally, he asks to have a limited and supervised connection to the

internet so he can file and serve documents, send exhibit lists, and submit proposed voir

dire and jury instructions. (Id.)

       Typically, an attorney would file trial-related documents and communicate with the

chambers of the presiding judge in a criminal case. Mr. Kaeding is representing himself,

which is his right. However, “[w]hen an accused manages his own defense, he relinquishes,

as a purely factual matter, many of the traditional benefits associated with the right to

counsel.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975). The Eighth Circuit has

expressed its “serious doubts whether a pretrial detainee who exercises his constitutional

right to represent himself at trial thereby becomes entitled to legal resources over and above

what are provided to the general inmate population.” United States v. Beale, 574 F.3d 512,

520 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting United States v. Kind, 194 F.3d 900, 905 (8th Cir.1999))

(affirming district court’s denial of pro se criminal defendant’s request for a different



                                              2

         CASE 0:21-cr-00169-ECT-JFD       Doc. 188    Filed 02/26/24    Page 3 of 3




computer). The Court will not provide office supplies or require personnel to supervise Mr.

Kaeding while he litigates his case.

         Mr. Kaeding is directed to comply with Judge Tostrud’s order as closely as he can

with the resources available to him. He is further encouraged to confer with his standby

counsel to determine which, if any, documents standby counsel can file on his behalf.1 If

Mr. Kaeding and standby counsel agree on a division of labor in this regard, standby

counsel is requested to submit a proposed order to the undersigned outlining any changes

in his or her responsibilities.

         Accordingly, based on all the files, records, and proceedings herein, IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED that Mr. Kaeding’s Motion for Order for Access to Word Processor

(Dkt. No. 186) is DENIED.


    Date: February 26, 2024                        s/ John F. Docherty
                                                   JOHN F. DOCHERTY
                                                   United States Magistrate Judge




1
  Standby counsel has filed Mr. Kaeding’s motions and sent courtesy copies to the Court
since Mr. Kaeding elected to represent himself on August 14, 2023.
                                             3

File and source

File

uscourts-mnd-0-21-cr-00169-7.pdf

Size

195,828 bytes

SHA-256

e6f32cf72f1b9926b07631ca08f519af1c4326d8c6a2870ab572ed1a621a5777

Our copy

uscourts-mnd-0-21-cr-00169-7.pdf