FACTS
AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
As a
result of Alan Reukauf's 1983 conviction in California
for forcible rape, Washington counties have required him to
register as a sex offender. He was convicted in 2010 for
failure to register as a sex offender in Skamania County, and
in 2011 for failure to register in Benton County. In
September 2017, Mr. Reukauf registered with Franklin County.
As a transient, he was required to check in weekly. When he
failed to appear for his weekly check-ins between August 15
and September 20, 2018, he was charged with failure to
register as a sex offender (third or subsequent offense).
At the
first reported court proceeding following his arrest, Mr
Reukauf's court-appointed lawyer, with the
prosecutor's support, asked the court to order an
evaluation of Mr. Reukauf's competency. The short hearing
at which the request was granted was dominated by Mr.
Reukauf: he complained about his lawyer, whom he wanted fired
(contending "he's working with the
prosecution"), he complained that a prior competency
evaluation had "delayed my trial for . . . nothing"
since he was found competent (interjecting, "Coo coo.
Coo coo. I'm crazy"), and he directed argumentative
statements at the lawyers (saying, "You're
worthless. So is this guy."). Report of Proceedings (RP)
(Jan. 29, 2019) at 5-8.
Two
weeks later, Jonathan M. Ryan, PsyD, submitted the results of
his evaluation of Mr. Reukauf to the trial court. He
explained that he had been unable to complete an interview of
Mr. Reukauf at the Franklin County Jail because about 45
minutes into the interview, Mr. Reukauf became angry when Dr.
Ryan was not receptive to Mr. Reukauf's insistence that
the doctor "use the '. . .art of deception' to
convince the court to send him to a secure mental health
facility." Clerk's Papers (CP) at 34. Dr. Ryan
reported that Mr. Reukauf
became highly agitated and stated, "So you are one of
them. How much do they pay you? Fuck you, I am done." He
then stood up, picked up a chair, and threw it at the window.
After throwing a second chair, custody staff entered the room
and restrained the defendant.
CP at 34-35.
Dr.
Ryan nonetheless formulated an opinion based on the aborted
interview, criminal, correctional, and counseling records,
and two competency evaluations prepared by others in August
2017 and April 2018. He quoted from the prior evaluations,
both of which discussed Mr. Reukauf's belief that he was
the target of a "Cabal." Dr. Ryan's
reproduction of portions of the prior evaluations included
the following clinical observation of Dr. Lisa VanDerley:
"[H]e did endorse a delusional belief system that he
referred to as the 'Cabal.' When asked to define this
he said, 'It's a secret group of plotters,
conspirators that have been out to get me for some time.'
Mr. Reukauf expressed that he believes the Cabal is made up
of police officers and government officials. He stated they
have had a vendetta against him since 2002."
CP at 29-30 (quoting Competency Evaluation by Lisa VanDerley,
PsyD, Aug. 7, 2017).
Dr.
Ryan concluded,
Mr. Reukauf may have a mental illness consisting of symptoms
of depression and anxiety and a personality disorder.
However, his symptoms of mental illness do not pose a barrier
to competency at this time. . . . Mr. Reukauf has the
capacity to understand the nature of the proceedings against
him and to assist in his own defense, should he elect to
do so. In my opinion, any refusal to assist his counsel
i[s] likely due to his maladaptive personality traits and not
the result of a mental disease or defect.
CP at 34. Dr. Ryan indicated the maladaptive behavior was
related to a diagnosable personality disorder.[1]
Following
receipt of Dr. Ryan's report, the parties stipulated that
Mr. Reukauf was competent to stand trial. The trial court
agreed and set trial for March 27, 2019.
At a
pretrial conference two weeks later and 15 days before the
scheduled trial, defense counsel reported that the plan had
been to call ready for trial, but Mr. Reukauf was now seeking
to represent himself. After hearing briefly from Mr. Reukauf,
the trial court told him it would set a hearing for that
afternoon so that it could "hear your-what you are
facing and go through an extensive colloquy with you."
RP (Mar. 12, 2019) at 4.
At the
afternoon hearing, Mr. Reukauf explained his desire to
represent himself but had trouble sticking to the topics
covered in the trial court's
Faretta[2] inquiry. The court asked Mr. Reukauf if he
understood his counsel was an experienced criminal defense
attorney, but Mr. Reukauf replied, "No, no, no.
That's just not going to happen. How about you let me
explain why I tried to fire him." RP (Mar. 12, 2019) at
6.
The
court asked about Mr. Reukauf's level of education and
Mr. Reukauf said he had earned his general education degree,
but he had not taken college classes. The court tried to
inquire about Mr. Reukauf's familiarity with law, but did
not receive helpful answers:
THE COURT: Have you ever taken any type of law classes?
MR. REUKAUF: I think it's irrelevant. I know how to speak
the truth. I can speak English; you can speak English. I
haven't studied law.
THE COURT: Are you familiar with the rules of evidence?
MR. REUKAUF: I know how to speak the truth.
THE COURT: I will take that-
MR. REUKAUF: And I am going to talk.
THE COURT: I will take that as a no.
MR. REUKAUF: And I am going to exercise my First Amendment
rights.
THE COURT: Are you familiar with-
MR. REUKAUF: And I cannot get a fair trial with that man over
there in the corner, that woman right there, the guy that
just left her, named-Ryan Swinburnson sent me up for 22
months because I was charged for spitting in a cop's
face, and I didn't do it. I did not spit in his face and
I did 22 months in prison.
THE COURT: Mr. Reukauf. Mr. Reukauf, again, we are talking
about things that have no bearing on this court's
decision of-
MR. REUKAUF: I am just saying I can't get a fair trial in
this court.
THE COURT: Mr. Reukauf.
MR. REUKAUF: And I am going to represent myself, if I
have-no, I would love to have Perry Mason on my team. Yeah, I
would love to have the dream team on my team, yes. I would
love that. But if it's a choice between me being my own
lawyer and him, uh-uh. It's me because it's-
otherwise it's a total kangaroo court.
RP (Mar. 12, 2019) at 10-12.
The
trial court asked Mr. Reukauf's lawyer whether he
perceived a conflict, and the lawyer responded, "I
believe myself and literally any other attorney who walks
into this room is going to have the same conflict." RP
(Mar. 12, 2019) at 12. When the court asked the lawyer to
clarify, Mr. Reukauf interjected that his lawyer "is
right," and "For a court appointed attorney, yeah,
of course. Yeah it's probably going to be like
that." Id.
With
that, the trial court told Mr. Reukauf that based on the
colloquy and the report from Dr. Ryan it was finding that he
did not have the ability to represent himself. It continued:
THE COURT: The court finds, if I allow you to represent
yourself, you would not be able to effectively do that in any
way, shape, or sense of the nature of what that requires. In
addition, the court believes that based on the situation that
you are in, that it would actually be materially harmful to
the administration of justice of being able to get through
the trial itself if you were allowed to represent yourself on
this matter.
Therefore, at this time the court is going to deny your
request to discharge [defense counsel]. The court finds there
is no conflict. Certainly from what you are saying and what
[defense counsel] has said, the court finds there is-
MR. REUKAUF: There is a conflict-there is a conflict.
THE COURT: -a difficulty in communicating-because you are
creating that.
MR. REUKAUF: No. I am not creating it. That man in the
corner; that man, [identifying a prosecutor who was evidently
observing the proceeding]. You don't realize how he
has-you don't realize-
THE COURT: Mr. Reukauf, again, you are talking about things
that have no bearing on the courts's [sic] decision.
MR. REUKAUF: Oh, it does, man. You don't understand. See
that's why I got to talk. That's why I have to talk.
THE COURT: The fact that you are unable to listen to-
MR. REUKAUF: This is my life. I am 71 years old. I don't
need to go to prison. You show me a victim. Show me a victim.
Who did I hurt? Who did I harm? Some person could come
forward.
THE COURT: The court is denying your motion to represent
yourself. The court finds you do not have the ability to do
that. The court finds-
MR. REUKAUF: I hear you. All right. All right. Yeah, okay. I
heard you. Thanks a lot.
THE COURT: -from your conduct that you are not willing to
follow the court rules. You are not willing to abide by even
standard decorum of what a normal person would be-would abide
by.
MR. REUKAUF: Decorum. Standard decorum. That man is a
murderer. That man is a murderer.
THE COURT: So the court would find-
MR. REUKAUF: He has got hit men.
THE COURT: The court would
...