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.