Barney Lerten
(Update: Jan. 2026 trial date set)
BEND, Ore. (KTVZ) – The trial of a downtown Bend murder suspect, originally set for last month, was rescheduled on Monday to take place next January, despite the judge’s original intent to have Caleb Cegers tried before 2025 comes to a close.
With Cegers, 21, watching by video from jail, Deschutes County Circuit Judge Beth Bagley reset the 10-day jury trial to begin next Jan. 13, after a trial readiness hearing on Dec. 15.
A week ago, Bagley denied Cegers’ bid for a new court-appointed lawyer after he claimed his defense attorneys had not kept in close enough contact with him, “yelled and cussed” at him and called him stupid.
The judge rejected those allegations by Cegers, who faces second-degree murder and other charges in the August 2023 fatal shooting of Taylor Wyss, 33, of Redmond on the sidewalk outside a downtown Bend bar.
Cegers had a delay in his trial, which was set for last month, much to the dismay of Wyss’s family. Instead, Bagley set last Monday’s hearing and instructed the prosecution and defense in the case to come up with mutually agreeable dates to hold the 10-day trial before the end of the year.
Attorney Lisa Valenta of the Bend Attorney Group had filed a motion to withdraw from the case, which Bagley denied last week after hearing Cegers’ complaints.
The defendant, who remains held without bail, said his relationship with Valenta and recently appointed co-counsel Dylan Potter “has completely deteriorated” and that it took six months at first for Valenta to contact him.
“As of today, Miss Valenta has yelled at me, cussed at me and screamed at me on multiple occasions,” he said, and in “one outburst even called me stupid.”
Cegers also said that he has found it “extremely difficult to get in contact with Miss Valenta,” and that she “flakes on me” and doesn’t show up as promised.
At one such meeting, he claimed, “She rolled her eyes, shrugged her shoulders and told me, ‘So what? I didn’t have the time.’”
Cegers accused Potter of the same behavior, and later, when asked by the judge if she could continue to work with him, Cegers first said perhaps as co-counsel, but later said that he did not want him as his lawyer, either.
“This is my life on the line, your honor,” Cegers said, claiming the standard of practice attorneys take an oath for was not being upheld.
But Bagley told Cegers that while he is entitled to competent representation, both attorneys “are qualified to handle a trial of this magnitude.”
The judge first told Cegers a new trial date is “most likely 6-12 months in the future,” which would “give your attorney plenty of time to work with you to prepare” for the case.
Valenta told the judge did not address her client’s claims directly but said she had spoken with Cegers several times by phone but on one recent occasion involving a full jail she had to leave before their planned meeting. The next day, Jan. 14, she did explain the issues involved with his request to move the trial elsewhere.
“That’s caused a breakdown in the attorney-client relationship,” Valenta said.
The judge denied the attorney’s motion to withdraw from the case.
“I don’t find there’s any real problem here,” Bagley said. And said they had been meeting “frequently and regularly” with Cegers.
“I’m going to encourage everybody to maybe start fresh,” the judge said, “and try to work on the relationship” going forward.
“Mr. Cegers, you need to have realistic expectations,” Bagley said, noting that his attorneys are “very experienced. They do know what they’re doing. You may not agree with their legal advice, but that’s their job. They probably cannot speak to you every single day. They have obligations to other clients. To the extent that there’s anything happening, you apprised of that. I don’t see sufficient basis to remove them.”
As the talk moved to trial dates, Cegrers asked the judge, “Could I say something?”
“Yes,” Bagley replied.
“I don’t feel it’s right that should be represented by someone who called me stupid,” Cegers said.
The judge replied: “I am not convinced that’s what happened, Mr. Cegers. They are good lawyers. … If you want something different, you are welcome to represent yourself – which is a terrible idea – or you can hire your own attorney. I find no reason or cause to remove them from your case. They will be your lawyers, and you need to accept that.”
Bagley also was firm on not pushing the trial too far out – and did not want it to happen in 2026: “This trial will be conducted this year,” she said, a goal not quite reached in Monday’s subsequent hearing.
Potter mentioned requesting funds from the state for a firearm/ballistics expert and as the talk turned to what dates are available, Bagley said, “These are issues for all of you to work out… We’re resetting the trial on Monday.”
