The pre-trial motions hearing for the case of State v. Sherrick Vaughn took place on September 20, 2025, presided over by Judge David D. Wolfe. The session began with the judge confirming readiness to proceed with the motions filed by the defendant, Sherrick Vaughn, who is representing himself pro se.

The judge noted that several motions required the presence of multiple witnesses, some of whom were unavailable due to training or other commitments. As a result, the trial originally scheduled for that day was postponed to September 25, 2025. The judge aimed to address as many motions as possible during the hearing.

Key motions discussed included Vaughn's request for his criminal record, which had been provided, and a motion to remove his elbow counsel, Mr. Spratt. Vaughn confirmed he was satisfied with Mr. Spratt's role as elbow counsel while he represented himself. The judge also addressed motions regarding discovery, confirming that Vaughn had received all necessary materials despite some earlier issues related to jail restrictions on document delivery.

Further motions included requests for recusal of the master clerk and court reporter, both of which were denied by the judge. Vaughn also sought a copy of the entire court file, which the judge indicated had been supplied.

The hearing progressed to a motion to preserve testimony and a subpoena for a witness, who was present and under subpoena for the upcoming trial. Vaughn filed additional motions, including a motion for indigency and a request for an arrest of judgment related to a previous failure to appear charge, which had been dismissed. The judge clarified that while the case was dismissed, Vaughn would need to file a separate motion for expungement if he wished to clear it from his record.

Vaughn raised concerns about the requirement to file motions through his elbow counsel, which he felt limited his ability to defend himself. The judge clarified that while he suggested Vaughn consult with Mr. Spratt, he had not mandated that all motions be filed through him.

The judge ultimately ruled on Vaughn's judicial notice regarding the state's failure to file a written response to his motion to suppress, stating that there was no legal requirement for the state to do so. Vaughn's objections were overruled, and the hearing proceeded with the state calling its first witness, Corporal Lindsey Javens.

The session concluded with the court prepared to move forward with the trial scheduled for September 25, 2025, as discussions on the motions continued.