Wood-chipper judge-killing-plot conviction overturned on appeal

A federal appeals court has overturned the conviction of a con man accused of plotting to have a federal judge put in a wood chipper and several other law enforcement officials killed, finding that he was improperly denied the right to represent himself at trial.

The decision this week by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sets the stage for a retrial of John Walthall at the federal courthouse in Santa Ana, the latest twist in a case that drew headlines thanks to comparisons to the bloody climax of the movie “Fargo.”

During his 2016 trial, Walthall, a former Laguna Beach resident, was accused of spending years plotting revenge against those he blamed for his 2012 conviction for defrauding investors with a bogus scheme to draw gold out of abandoned mines. While serving time at the federal prison in Lompoc, prosecutors allege, Walthall concocted a plan to kill U.S. District Judge Andrew J. Guilford, who presided over his fraud trial, two FBI investigators and two federal prosecutors.

In June 2014, in the prison yard at Lompoc, Walthall sat down with a man he believed could carry out the plot. The man, an undercover FBI agent, recorded their conversation, in which Walthall specified that the judge should be “put in a (expletive) wood chipper.”

Walthall’s attorney accused two other inmates of entrapping Walthall by planting the scheme in his head so they could go to authorities and turn him in, thus earning time off their own sentences. The attorney described Walthall as a “parnoid, delusional man,” who other inmates considered to be a “nut” given to long diatribes about far-fetched conspiracies.

A jury convicted Walthall of a felony count of solicitation to commit a crime of violence. U.S. District Judge Cormac J. Carney described Walthall as a bitter, angry, sadistic and cruel man, and sentenced him to an additional 20 years in prison.

Walthall acted erratically at several points during his trial. He interrupted and yelled at his own attorney during opening statements, telling him he didn’t agree to an insanity defense and refusing to stop talking until a judge ordered him out of the courtroom. During his sentencing, Walthall launched into a rambling, stream-of-conscious speech in which he made vague allegations of law enforcement chicanery and threats to his safety.

According to the appeals court decision, two prison psychologist testified prior to Walthall’s trial that he did not suffer from any major mental illness that would “deprive him of the ability to understand the nature of the proceedings against him.” But due to his “antics during court appearances,” Judge Carney denied Walthall the opportunity to represent himself, ruling that while he was competent to stand trial, he was not “willing or capable to perform the essential tasks needed to present his defense.”

“Even if Walthall was ‘abysmally ignorant when it comes to technical legal knowledge,’ he still possessed the right (subject to limitation) to self-representation,” the appeals court judges wrote. “Termination of Walthall’s self-representation would have been warranted if Walthall was disruptive or engaged in obstructionist behavior after he was afforded the opportunity to represent himself.”

A new trial has not yet been scheduled.