ILNews

COA orders new trial for overly talkative defendant

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

In a divided opinion, the Indiana Court of Appeals has reversed a trial court’s denial of motion for mistrial, holding that the court went too far in physically preventing a defendant from speaking.

Kenneth Vaughn was charged with Class D felony robbery and other charges for allegedly robbing a bank in Merrillville. During a three-day trial in 2008, court records show that Vaughn repeatedly presented then withdrew requests to represent himself. On the final day of trial, Vaughn took the stand, and rather than answer his attorney’s open-ended question about events on the day of the robbery, Vaughn instead began criticizing his attorney.

Lake Superior Judge Thomas Stefaniak, Jr. interrupted at least four times, instructing Vaughn to stop talking. Vaughn continued talking about his attorney, and the judge ordered the jury to be removed from the courtroom. While the jury was still present, the bailiff put his hand over Vaughn’s mouth and handcuffed him.

With the jury out of the courtroom, the judge spoke to Vaughn, expressing his frustration that Vaughn had been “flimflamming back and forth” about whether to represent himself and saying that he believed Vaughn may have been trying to cause a mistrial all along. After that conversation, the bailiff removed Vaughn’s handcuffs, and the jury and all parties returned to the courtroom. Vaughn then answered his attorney’s questions without incident.

The jury found Vaughn guilty of Class C felony robbery and Class D felony resisting law enforcement, and the court sentenced him to six years on the first count and two years on the second, to be served consecutively.

In Kenneth Dwayne Vaughn v. State of Indiana, No.45A05-1102-CR-57, Kenneth Vaughn appealed the trial court’s dismissal of his motion for mistrial. The appeals court wrote that in order to grant a mistrial, the defendant must prove that he was placed in “grave peril” – the gravity of which is measured by its persuasive effect on the jury.

Citing Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E. 2d 1179, 1193 (Ind. 2001), the COA held that a defendant should be handcuffed only when he presents a danger to those in the courtroom, to prevent his escape, or to maintain order during trial, because the use of restraints could cause jurors to assume a defendant is guilty.

In Vaughn, the appeals court held that the trial court overreacted to Vaughn’s disruptive comments and that despite his continuous waffling about whether to proceed pro se, he had not previously disrupted proceedings.

The COA majority wrote: “We realize that it sometimes takes superhuman effort to restrain the natural frustration of dealing with difficult people at challenging times. We also recognize that this action is totally out of character for this seasoned and fine trial court judge.” Muzzling and restraining Vaughn, the appeals court held, deprived him of a fair trial before an untainted and impartial jury. It reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Judge Ezra Friedlander dissented, stating that he believed the trial court’s actions in silencing Vaughn were appropriate. Both the trial court and the defense, Friedlander wrote, were concerned that Vaughn was about to make statements on the stand that might cause a mistrial, and no one could predict whether Vaughn would have continued to disregard the judge’s orders to be quiet. Judge Friedlander also wrote that the jury would likely understand the reason for the restraints and would not assume that Vaughn was a dangerous person.

“Whether purposeful or not, he should not be permitted to gain from his willful disregard of the trial court’s commands,” Judge Friedlander wrote. “I would affirm the trial court in all respects.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT