Washington v. Boughton

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging his sexual assault convictions, in part, on ground that Wisc. trial court improperly denied his motion to proceed pro se, which was made on start date of trial. Trial court’s rationale for denying defendant’s motion to proceed pro se, i.e., that defendant was unfamiliar with rules of evidence, that he was ill-equipped to deal with govt.’s DNA evidence, and that it would be “problematic” for defendant to cross-examine govt. witnesses, did not comport with ruling in Faretta, 422 U.S. 806, since trial court’s concerns that defendant was not competent to represent himself based upon perception that defendant lacked education, experience or legal know-how, was not pertinent in resolving defendant’s request to proceed pro se, since only relevant inquiry is whether defendant was mentally competent to stand trial. Moreover, defendant’s mental competence to stand trial was established in record, and Ct. rejected state’s argument that defendant’s display of irrational and disruptive behavior justified instant denial of his request to proceed pro se, where said conduct occurred after trial court had denied said request. Also, trial court should have granted defendant’s request to proceed pro se, but then could have terminated it if it ever became clear that defendant sought to use courtroom for deliberate disruption of trial.