Attorney Jesse Walstad’s motion to withdraw was addressed Monday, April 27, along with an application filed by his former client, Daniel Breijo, for indigent defense services. Walstad and Breijo appeared in person at the courthouse while other parties appeared via ITV.

Walstad told District Court Judge Daniel El-Dweek he believed the information in his brief was sufficient to support his motion, and that Breijo would be eligible for a public defender. Walstad said he had spoken with both Breijo and the director of the indigent defense counsel regarding the transition process to his new attorney.

“Some of this we’ve more or less already begun, but that we would do everything in my power to smoothly and in good faith transition the file and necessary information to incoming counsel to ensure Mr. Breijo’s rights and the defense of this case are neither harmed nor hampered in the transition,” Walstad said.

El-Dweek probed Walstad on whether there was risk of prejudice if he was allowed to withdraw, but Walstad said this risk would be mitigated by direct coordination and communication with the public defender as there was adequate time before the October trial date to get them up to speed and process any future motions.

Screen Image District Court Judge Daniel El-Dweek addresses attorney Jesse Walstad's motion to withdraw his representation of the man charged in the shooting of serviceman Nicholas Van Pelt in 2023.

“At this stage, the primary work would be that of trial prep, and I think six months is adequate time to do that,” Walstad responded. “I think it’s both my ethical obligation and personal feeling that we would do everything we can to support that good faith and diligent transition to mitigate any risk to Mr. Breijo.”

El-Dweek acknowledged Walstad’s reasons for seeking to withdraw, which Walstad said would inflict undue financial hardship on him as the attorney and hamper Breijo’s defense should he not be allowed to withdraw. Walstad said there are costs beyond just attorney’s fees at issue due to the costs of mounting the defense’s trial preparation.

“But I’m also concerned it would severely limit necessary resources to my client,” Walstad said.

El-Dweek asked Breijo if he consented to Walstad’s withdrawal, which he said he did. Special Ward County State’s Attorney Amanda Engelstad stated she agreed the majority of pre-trial motions have been completed and asked the judge to swiftly approve Breijo’s application for indigent defense should he grant Walstad’s request.

“We are six or so months out, and I would like to keep this date on the trial calendar, because this case has been pushed out a lot and that there are victims waiting,” Engelstad said. “I think the more time that passes, the more risky that gets. If the court is inclined to do it, I would ask that it do both of those swiftly.”

El-Dweek immediately granted both motions due to the lack of prejudice created by the withdrawal along with Breijo’s consent. He made plans for a scheduling hearing once a public defender has been appointed.

As far as any further delays, El-Dweek noted a pending Supreme Court ruling on a request for a supervisory writ by BEK Communications regarding a denied motion to quash a subpoena could potentially complicate the schedule.