Kansas Supreme Court rules trial judge violated defendant’s constitutional right to murder

The Kansas Supreme Court unanimously ordered a new trial in Hutchinson’s 2015 murder case because a Reno County District Court judge wrongly forced the defendant to represent himself. even at trial. Additionally, the Supreme Court set precedent by holding that a defendant in Kansas could lose the right to court-appointed counsel if he or she engaged in extreme misconduct. (Kansas Reflector screenshot from the Kansas Supreme Court website.

TOPEKA — The Kansas Supreme Court unanimously ordered a new trial for a Hutchinson man because a Reno County District Court judge violated the defendant’s constitutional right to legal assistance. lawyer during a 2019 murder trial.

The justices ruled that Judge Trish Rose’s order that defendant Brennan Trass take responsibility for his own defense violated the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Trass, 40, was accused of fatally shooting Jose Morales during a meth deal in 2015. It took more than three years to go to trial, in part because 11 attorneys assigned to defend Trass were excused after a clash with Trass.

Rose, frustrated with the pace of the case, issued an order that let Trass defend himself at trial. He challenged that order in district court before being convicted of murder in 2019 and then through a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled that Rose was wrong to rule that Trass had lost his right to a court-appointed attorney. Additionally, the Supreme Court said Rose failed to inform Trass of the disadvantages of self-representation or give Trass the opportunity to change his behavior to meet an acceptable standard.

The judge had a standby attorney in the courtroom during the trial, who was called at the conclusion of the trial when Trass asked to remain in jail for the remainder of the proceedings.

“The district court violated Trass’s right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution,” Judge Melissa Standridge said in the court’s opinion. “Given that this violation constitutes a structural error affecting the mechanics of the trial, we vacate his convictions for first-degree murder and criminal possession of a firearm and remand him for a new trial before a different judge.”

The opinion stated that violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel was a matter of fundamental fairness and required automatic vacation of the conviction.

At the same time, the state Supreme Court established precedent by ruling that a defendant in Kansas could lose the right to counsel if he committed extraordinary misconduct.

“Although we have never held as a matter of law that a defendant in Kansas can waive his or her right to counsel due to misconduct, we do so today,” the opinion states. .

In doing so, the state appeals court said Trass’ conduct did not rise to the level necessary to justify denying counsel. The judges said Trass’ actions did not constitute serious misconduct or a disruption intended to thwart the legal process.

“Forfeiture is an extreme sanction in response to extreme conduct that endangers the integrity or security of legal proceedings and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances, as a last resort, in response to the most serious misconduct and deliberate,” Standridge wrote.

Before trial in March 2019, according to the opinion, Rose told Trass “that I conclude that you have waived your right to appointed counsel because of your conduct.” I find that appointing a new council would be an exercise in futility. She asked attorney Bobby Hiebert to be Trass’ attorney.

Reno County prosecutors filed a motion asking the judge to “formally inform the defendant of the pitfalls of his own representation.” At a pretrial hearing that followed, Rose declined to highlight the potential downsides of self-representation or explore Trass’ willingness to sue in district court.

Before the trial began, Trass denied losing or knowingly waiving his right to counsel.

“Trass did not expressly waive his right to counsel, so he could only implicitly waive it by his conduct or by waiving that right,” the Supreme Court said. “A review of the record shows that Trass did not implicitly waive his right to counsel as a result of his conduct.”

The opinion also says: “The court’s failure to advise Trass of the disadvantages of self-representation – even after the State encouraged the court to hold a hearing to that effect – precludes a finding that Trass knowingly chose , voluntarily and intentionally to waive his right. to advise. »

In another Supreme Court ruling, the justices said the long period between the 2015 homicide and the 2019 trial did not violate Trass’ right to a speedy trial.

The judges also said the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support Trass’ conviction of murder and possession of a firearm. Trass was originally sentenced to more than 50 years in prison.