An outlandish defense theory does not prove that a defendant should not have been allowed to waive the right to counsel at trial, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals recently held.

After brutally attacking a woman and beating her to death in her home, Jessie Wise hung around the home for two days. He stole the victim's money, car and jewelry, which he pawned for cocaine. Wise wished to represent himself at trial, and the judge, who held a competency hearing in which he asked Wise about everything from mental health to legal knowledge, found that Wise had a rational understanding of the proceedings against him and permitted Wise to defend himself.

Wise presented a defense theory that implicated the victim's husband, the police, prosecutors and the public defenders in an alleged plot to frame him for the victim's murder. A Missouri state court convicted him of first degree murder and sentenced him to death. Wise appealed and was unsuccessful. He then brought a habeas corpus petition in District Court which was also unsuccessful. Wise appealed again.

On appeal, Wise argued that the trial court erred in allowing him to represent himself. The Eight Circuit, however, held that the trial court had done all it was required to do in allowing Wise to go forward pro se. While a waiver of the right to counsel must be knowing and voluntary, the trial court does not need to find that the defendant will be effective as his or her own counsel. The trial court only needs to find that a defendant is competent to stand trial, which it did via the competency hearing. "Bad trial tactics on the part of a pro se defendant do not prove incompetence," the court stated, affirming the dismissal of the habeas corpus petition.