Wilkinson v. Collado

Background

Keith Wilkinson, the petitioner, renewed his request for a free lawyer and asked for additional time to file his reply. Jaifa Collado, the respondent, opposed the request. Wilkinson argued that he needed access to trial transcripts and that sensitive witness names were already included in Collado’s publicly filed papers.

Request for Counsel

The court denied Wilkinson’s renewed request for pro bono counsel. The court stated that Wilkinson had not identified a change in circumstances that would justify appointing counsel. It relied on its earlier conclusion that limited access to transcripts was not enough. The court also noted that Wilkinson had attended his own trial and could use his memory to respond to Collado’s description of the proceedings.

The court further explained that the transcripts had been provided to the court under seal, allowing the court to review them independently. It rejected Wilkinson’s argument that he should receive the transcripts because witness names appeared in unsealed filings. The court reasoned that mentioning names in legal papers was different from distributing a word-for-word transcript that could potentially be shared with other incarcerated people to coordinate attacks on witnesses.

Extension of Time and Disposition

The court granted Wilkinson an extension to file his reply until July 21, 2022. It denied his renewed application for pro bono counsel, directed the Clerk to terminate the pending application, and requested that a copy of the order be mailed to the pro se petitioner. Judge Judith C. McCarthy signed the order.