California Supreme Court Overturns Conviction of Defendant who Represented Himself After Expert Deemed Him Incompetent to Stand Trial

The California Supreme Court has reversed the con­vic­tion of a death-row pris­on­er who was per­mit­ted to waive coun­sel and rep­re­sent him­self despite a men­tal health expert’s find­ing that he was too men­tal­ly ill even to stand trial.

On August 23, 2021, the appeals court grant­ed a new tri­al to Edward M. Wycoff in the 2006 mur­ders of his sis­ter and broth­er-in-law. In a unan­i­mous opin­ion authored by Justice Martin Jenkins (pic­tured), the court held that Wycoff’s tri­al was uncon­sti­tu­tion­al­ly taint­ed by Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge John Kennedy’s fail­ure to assess Wycoff’s men­tal com­pe­ten­cy before allow­ing him to waive crit­i­cal trial rights.

Jenkins wrote that Kennedy ​“was pre­sent­ed with sub­stan­tial evi­dence of defendant’s men­tal incom­pe­tence — specif­i­cal­ly, his inabil­i­ty, due to men­tal ill­ness, to con­sult ratio­nal­ly with coun­sel — and there­fore the court was oblig­at­ed to ini­ti­ate the com­pe­ten­cy pro­ce­dures … which it failed to do.” As a result of Kennedy’s rul­ings, the court said, the pro­ceed­ings devolved into a cha­rade, as the men­tal­ly-ill Wycoff ​“treat­ed the tri­al like an enter­tain­ment show, made numer­ous jokes, and admit­ted all the facts under­ly­ing the charges.”

The California Supreme Court returned Wycoff’s case to the coun­ty to assess his com­pe­ten­cy to be retried. If Wycoff is found com­pe­tent and ​“again seeks to rep­re­sent him­self,” the court advised, ​“the tri­al court has dis­cre­tion, depend­ing on the med­ical evi­dence, to deny self-representation.”

Prior to the tri­al in 2009, foren­sic psy­chol­o­gist Dr. Paul Good exam­ined Wycoff and diag­nosed him as ​“most prob­a­bly suf­fer­ing from Paranoid Schizophrenia.” Good found that Wycoff had an under­stand­ing of the legal sys­tem and the facts of his case. However, Good explained, Wycoff’s “[s]elf-importance,” ​“pride­ful inde­pen­dence,” and ​“grandios­i­ty” left him unable ​“to ratio­nal­ly con­sid­er ​‘telling his sto­ry’ with the assis­tance of an attor­ney.” As a result, Good con­clud­ed, ​“I find him incom­pe­tent to stand trial.” 

In grant­i­ng Wycoff’s request to rep­re­sent him­self, Judge Kennedy wrote, ​“it does appear to me that while there is a diag­no­sis of para­noia, and [it] appears to be con­sis­tent with the court’s own obser­va­tions of [defen­dant], I frankly do not think it ris­es to the lev­el that would pre­clude [defen­dant] from elect­ing to rep­re­sent him­self should he choose to do so.” Wycoff’s appoint­ed defense coun­sel did not object, telling the judge ​“We trust your read­ing of [Good’s report].”

At tri­al, Wycoff admit­ted his guilt and said he was ​“proud” of his crime, char­ac­ter­iz­ing him­self, in the words of the court opin­ion, as ​“a hero­ic vin­di­ca­tor of good over evil.” He insult­ed the jury, call­ing them ​“lumpers,” ​“com­i­cal­ly chal­lenged,” and ​“midgets”; threat­ened the pros­e­cu­tor; and tried to make jokes. 

In his clos­ing argu­ment, Wycoff told the jury, ​“I do not deserve pun­ish­ment for this. I deserve award and reward and to live a beau­ti­ful, peace­ful life for this. You know, peo­ple need to look up at me and appre­ci­ate me for this.”

In the sen­tenc­ing phase of tri­al, Eric Rogers, the old­est child of the mur­der vic­tims, tes­ti­fied that he didn’t want his uncle to be sen­tenced to death, describ­ing Wycoff as ​“men­tal­ly child­ish.” He gave a state­ment at sen­tenc­ing, say­ing, ​“Ted, I’m not on your side at all. … It’s not because I have a par­tic­u­lar affin­i­ty for you [that I am oppos­ing the death penal­ty]. It’s because I think it would be irre­spon­si­ble for us to be a pun­ish­ing and con­demn­ing soci­ety. I would hate to see that done in my par­ents’ name.” Rogers told jour­nal­ists that his par­ents had opposed capital punishment.

The jury delib­er­at­ed just two hours before con­vict­ing Wycoff and one hour before rec­om­mend­ing that he be sen­tenced to death. At Wycoff’s request, the judge sched­uled the final deci­sion on sen­tenc­ing for Wycoff’s birth­day. Wycoff addressed the court by say­ing, ​“Welcome to my birth­day par­ty. Is every­one hav­ing fun? Is every­one hav­ing a good time?” 

After hand­ing down the death sen­tence, Judge Kennedy told Wycoff he believed he had ​“made the cor­rect deci­sion allow­ing you to rep­re­sent your­self.” ​“Oh, so do I,” Wycoff replied.

The Contra Costa District Attorney’s office must now decide whether to seek the death penal­ty in any retri­al. D.A. Diana Becton, who took office in September 2017, is a mem­ber of the Prosecutors Alliance of California, a group of polit­i­cal­ly pro­gres­sive pros­e­cu­tors who have expressed oppo­si­tion to capital punishment.