explained to the jury, he had simply acted as a zealous advocate on Baskerville's behalf: "[W]hen I represented -- was called . to represent William Baskerville, who was accused of a criminal offense, the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution said that I had to represent him, that he deserved to be represented effectively. And that's all I ever did in this case." (Id.) Thus, although Bergrin acknowledged calling Curry and informing him that Kemo was the confidential witness, he characterized that call as part of his legal duty to represent Baskerville and denied any malicious motives.*fn14

Bergrin spoke similarly in explaining the Pozo Plot to the jury, stating:

Let me tell you about the facts of Richard Pozo which will come out in this case. Richard Pozo wasI don't expect I would be changing those rulings." (Id. at 49-50.) On November 30, 2011, the government filed a notice of appeal challenging those evidentiary rulings.*fn17

The next day, the government moved to try the remainder of the counts in the Indictment at the January 2012 retrial, though it stated it would be willing to sever the tax evasion counts upon Bergrin's request. The Court held a hearing on December 8, 2011 to consider which counts to try next. Bergrin appeared at the hearing and asked the Court to stay proceedings pending our disposition of the government's appeal of the evidentiary rulings. After consulting with the government, the Court suggested a second severance in which the drug-trafficking counts and the witness-tampering counts pertaining to the Esteves Plot would