Saxman No Title

• Jurisdiction: Vermont,United States
• Citation: Vol. 2002 No. 06
• Publication year: 2002

Vermont Bar Journal 2002.

June 2002. Saxman No Title

SPECIAL FOCUS: DISABILITY LAW STATE V. BEAN: THE INSANITY DEFENSE AND THE RIGHT TO PROCEED PRO SE

Anna Saxman, Esq.

This article briefly describes the law pertaining to the representation of proba-bly insane defendants who may object to raising the insanity defense and who wish to represent themselves. In 1989, a defen-dant argued in the Vermont Supreme Court that once an insanity defense has been raised, a waiver of the defense had to be made voluntarily and knowingly by the defendant (and not the attorney) on the record.1 Justice Dooley, writing for the Court, rejected the argument, in part because "the defendant had experienced trial counsel and there is nothing to sug-gest that counsel was acting against the wishes of the client."2

Eleven years later, the Court held that a competent defendant has the right to decide whether to use the insanity defense.3 The decision whether to pursue an insanity defense is not the attorney's, but the defendant's. Justice Dooley, writ-ing for the majority held that the "forced imposition of the insanity defense over defendant's objection is grounds for rever-sal."4 The facts of this intriguing case offer insight into the Supreme Court's decision.

In 1993, Ron Bean was charged with violation of an abuse prevention order for tying his mother up. Apparently, Mr. Bean tied her up and built a funeral pyre, using an ax to chop up furniture. He also threw bleach in her eyes. His mother was able to escape out a window when he permitted her to go to the bathroom. The police offi-cer noted in his affidavit that the defendant believed he was the reincarnation of Christ. At his first appearance before the court, Bean admitted that he was planning to kill his mother with the ax and burn her body, although these statements were later suppressed.5 They were suppressed because they were made without a valid waiver of counsel.6 Justice Dooley writing for the Court noted that Bean's statements at the initial hearings "were inconsistent and often bizarre, indicating an inability to comprehend what was occurring."7

Mr. Bean was then charged with kidnap-ping for the same events. Mr. Bean was not represented by counsel, but he wanted to plead guilty. The trial court would not accept the plea. Bean was then assigned a public defender despite his objections. After about a year of representing Bean, this attorney was permitted to withdraw. Bean told one of the evaluators that he believed that he was the father of the pub-lic defender's children and that she was the author of a comic strip. He said she was a cross between Janet Reno and Janet Jackson. He wanted to represent himself or have private counsel.

He was then assigned to Matt Valerio, who represented him for the next eight years. During that time, Bean never dis-cussed any of the facts of the case with his attorney. Instead, he held long mono-logues about his powers, the devil, and angels. According to Valerio, Bean was actively delusional throughout the many years of representation. Valerio repeated-ly raised competency because he believed that Bean was incompetent throughout the many years of representation.

Bean was evaluated by Dr. Linder, who, while admitting that...