Defendant Voluntarily Waived Trial Rights Despite Possible Onset of
Mental Illness
By Joe Forward, Legal Writer,
State Bar of Wisconsin
Oct. 30, 2012
– A state appeals court recently ruled against a defendant who
claimed his deteriorating mental health did not allow him to knowingly
and intentionally waive his constitutional right to be present and
testify at his own trial.
A jury found Allen Vaughn guilty of attempted first-degree homicide in
the stabbing of his mother’s boyfriend, and the trial court
sentenced him to 20 years in prison followed by 15 years of extended
supervision. Vaughn refused to be present at his own trial.
Before trial, Vaughn’s trial lawyer asked for psychological
examinations to determine whether Vaughn was competent to stand trial,
questioning his ability to communicate rationally or understand the
proceedings against him. However, separate psychiatrists found that he
did not lack substantial capacity to understand or assist in his own
defense.
Ultimately, the trial court ruled that Vaughn was competent to stand
trial. But when the trial began in March 2008, the logic of his various
outbursts again placed his mental competence in question. After he was
removed from the courtroom, he refused to return for his trial.
Defense counsel asked for a new competency evaluation, but the court
denied the request. The trial court also ruled that Vaughn waived his
right to be present and testify at the trial. He was subsequently
convicted and sentenced to a 20-year prison term.
In prison, a prison psychiatrist diagnosed Vaughn with “psychotic
disorder” and he was later committed as a mentally ill person in
need of treatment. Postconviction proceedings were filed on
Vaughn’s behalf, and the postconviction judge found that he was
not competent.
The psychiatrist said Vaughn exhibited symptoms of psychosis before
trial but could not rule out the possibility that Vaughn still
understood those proceedings.
The circuit court denied Vaughn’s motion for postconviction
relief, accepting the trial court’s finding that Vaughn was
competent to waive his right to be present and testify at trial, and his
post-sentencing mental health evaluations did not warrant modification
of his sentence.
On appeal, Vaughn argued that he could not waive any trial rights
because of a mental illness. But in State
v. Vaughn, the District I Court of Appeals rejected this
argument and affirmed.
“Although Vaughn might not been able to represent himself at his
trial, a matter that we do not decide, he has not shown that he was not
fully able to decide whether to participate in his trial or, as he did,
endeavor to obstruct it,” wrote Judge Ralph Fine.
The three-judge appeals panel noted that circuit courts must conduct
colloquy’s to determine whether a defendant knowingly and
voluntarily waives a right to testify, but refused to impose a rule that
would require a defendant’s forcible presence to meet this
requirement.
“[W]e will not impose on the circuit courts a rule that not only
would be pyrrhic in the sense that if an obstreperous defendant is
dragged into court and still does not cooperate, dragging the defendant
into court accomplishes nothing, but would also endanger everyone
including the defendant,” wrote Judge Fine.