USA v. Wilson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CAESAR MUNIR WILSON,
Defendant.
Case No. 26-cr-0027 (LMP/JFD)
ORDER
Matthew Evans and Matthew Forbes, United States Attorneys’ Office, Minneapolis,
MN, for Plaintiff.
Caesar Munir Wilson, pro se Defendant.
Before the Court is Defendant Caesar Munir Wilson’s objection, ECF No. 45,1 to
United States Magistrate Judge John F. Docherty’s order, ECF No. 44, denying Wilson’s
request for Communication Access Realtime Translation (“CART”) services, ECF No. 43.
Wilson, who is proceeding pro se, states that his “ability to process and comprehend
spoken information in real time is materially affected under typical courtroom conditions,
including rapid or overlapping speech, variations in volume and clarity, inconsistent
1 	While the filing is titled Motion for Communication Accommodation Necessary for
Effective Participation in Court Proceedings (ECF No. 45), the Court understands it to be
an objection to Magistrate Judge Docherty’s ruling on Wilson’s earlier request for CART
services, which it understands to be a nondispositive motion under Federal Rule of
Criminal Procedure 59(a). Rule 59(a) requires a district judge to consider timely objections
to a magistrate judge’s order and to modify or set aside any part of the order that is contrary
to law or clearly erroneous. 	Failure to object in accordance with Rule 59(a) waives a
party’s right to review.
CASE 0:26-cr-00027-LMP-JFD Doc. 52 Filed 04/06/26 Page 1 of 4

2
microphone 	use, 	distance 	from 	speakers, 	and 	the 	use 	of 	technical 	or 	specialized
terminology.” ECF No. 45 at 4. As a result, he seeks a Court order granting him access to
CART services for all courtroom proceedings, or alternatively some other “auxiliary aid or
service that the Court finds to be equally effective.” Id. at 3.
Notably, Wilson is not suggesting that he is unable to hear courtroom proceedings.
Instead, 	he 	states 	that 	he 	might 	be—at 	times—unable 	to 	comprehend 	courtroom
proceedings in real time. But there is simply no indication from the record that Wilson has
struggled to understand anything happening in the courtroom, and the Court accordingly
agrees with Magistrate Judge Docherty that Wilson has not demonstrated a need for the
“expensive” and “cumbersome” CART services. 	ECF No. 44; see United States v.
Kaeding, No. 24-3462, 2025 WL 4666256, at *10 (8th Cir. Mar. 27, 2025) (affirming
district court’s denial of CART services where the record showed that the defendant had
no hearing or comprehension issues). 	Moreover, to the extent that Wilson encounters
difficulty 	understanding 	parts 	of 	any 	courtroom 	proceeding 	due 	to 	the 	“pace” 	of
conversation or “variability in volume, clarity, and microphone use,” ECF No. 45 at 1,
Wilson may certainly ask the Court for appropriate assistance. 	Kaeding, 2025 WL
4666256, at *10 (noting that comprehension issues can be adequately addressed by, for
instance, asking witnesses “to repeat themselves”). And the Court notes that hearings are
rarely, if ever, dominated by crosstalk or rapid conversation. Instead, the parties separately
take turns at the lectern formally presenting their arguments to the Court or questions to
witnesses. If any difficulties arise, the Court will be in a position to determine whether any
CASE 0:26-cr-00027-LMP-JFD Doc. 52 Filed 04/06/26 Page 2 of 4

3
other accommodations are necessary to ensure Wilson’s meaningful participation in
courtroom proceedings.
Finally, to the extent Wilson encounters difficulty understanding “the use of
technical and legal terminology,” ECF No. 45 at 4, CART—or any other transcription
service—is not the solution. 	First, CART would not assist Wilson to understand such
terminology because all that Wilson would receive is a transcription of a conversation. As
a result, if Wilson does not comprehend the “technical and legal terminology” when he
hears it, CART would not aid him in any meaningful matter. Second, as Magistrate Judge
Docherty noted, Wilson was advised that his decision to proceed pro se would carry with
it the very risk of which he now complains: the failure to understand legal terminology or
complex issues. Wilson accepted that risk and expressed his understanding that the Court
would treat him the same as it would any lawyer that appeared before it. 	See Faretta v.
California, 422 U.S. 806, 835 (1975) (“Although a defendant need not himself have the
skill and experience of a lawyer in order competently and intelligently to choose self-
representation, he should be made aware of the dangers and disadvantages of self-
representation, so that the record will establish that ‘he knows what he is doing and the his
choice is made with eyes open.’”). 	And no lawyer would be provided CART services
simply because the lawyer encountered difficulty understanding legal terminology or
complex legal issues. 	Id. at 836 (holding that pro se party is required to follow all the
“ground rules” of trial procedure).
CASE 0:26-cr-00027-LMP-JFD Doc. 52 Filed 04/06/26 Page 3 of 4

4
For these reasons, the Court OVERRULES Wilson’s objection (ECF No. 45) and
denies CART services for courtroom proceedings.
Dated: April 6, 2026 	s/Laura M. Provinzino
Laura M. Provinzino
United States District Judge
CASE 0:26-cr-00027-LMP-JFD Doc. 52 Filed 04/06/26 Page 4 of 4