Vaughn v. State, 954 N.E.2d 482

Vaughn was charged with bank robbery and resisted trial with ongoing self-representation questions; he testified, was interrupted for non-responsive answer, and the court restrained him and covered his mouth in front of the jury.
The jury was excused during the restraint and later returned; Vaughn’s attorney sought a mistrial, which the trial court denied.
The trial court acknowledged Vaughn’s indecision about self-representation and noted prior attempts to proceed pro se.
The court’s restraint involved hand over mouth and removal of Vaughn to a side area; the court stated the restraint was to control disruptive conduct.
The Indiana Court of Appeals held the restraint violated Vaughn’s right to a fair trial and reversed and remanded for a new trial; the majority found grave peril but the dissents disagreed, leading to reversal on that basis.
Vaughn had a history of wavering on self-representation, including multiple motions and a lunchtime motion to proceed pro se during trial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court abuse its discretion by denying mistrial after restraining Vaughn?	Vaughn was unfairly placed in grave peril by restraints.	Court overreacted; restraint was excessive for a single outburst.	Yes, abuse of discretion; reversal and new trial.
Did restraining Vaughn in front of the jury violate due process and presumptions of innocence?	Restraints stigmatized Vaughn as guilty.	Remedial action necessary to preserve order.	Yes, restraints violated due process and presumption of innocence.
Were the trial court’s actions governed or limited by Avant and Wrinkles standards?	Avant supports stronger limits on restraints.	Context justified restraints under Avant.	The restraints were not justified under the cited precedents, contributing to grave peril.
Should the case be remanded for a new trial rather than retry with current record?	Remand is appropriate to ensure fair trial.	New trial not necessary; no grave per il found.	Remand for a new trial.

Wrinkles v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind.2001) (right to appear without restraints; presumptio n of innocence; decorum in courtroom)
Avant v. State, 528 N.E.2d 74 (Ind.1988) (extreme measures to silence; last resort; tape-mouth case)
Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337 (1980) (three permissible ways to handle obstreperous defendant; bind and gag, contempt, or remove until silent)
Mengon v. State, 505 N.E.2d 788 (Ind.1987) (court may manage proceedings to ensure order)
Stephenson v. State, 864 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind.2007) (guidance on decorum and restraint considerations)
Kocielko v. State, 938 N.E.2d 243 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (general principle about restraints in court)