A federal judge in Florida has officially hit pause on a key decision in the criminal case involving Shawn Chan, the man charged with stalking WWE star Liv Morgan, signaling that the case will now stretch out longer than originally expected.
On Monday, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida ruled that the government will be permitted to hire its own expert to evaluate Chans mental state before the court decides whether his legal team can proceed with an insanity defense. Judge Mary S. Scriven made it clear in her order that prosecutors will have the opportunity to challenge the defenses psychiatric findings.
That decision alone makes it unlikely Chans case will reach trial anytime soon. The delay comes after prosecutors strongly objected to the defenses attempt to introduce an insanity argument just weeks before trial. In a motion filed on January 6, the government argued that the request was untimely and that Chan had waited far too long to bring the issue forward, pointing out that the deadline for pre-trial motions had passed seven months earlier.
Prosecutors also challenged the logic behind the defenses explanation, noting that Chan had already been claiming he believed he was in a relationship with Liv Morgan as far back as September 2025, well before any psychiatric evaluation was completed. Chans attorneys, however, argued in their December 23 filing that the delay was not their fault and that they acted responsibly once concerns about his mental state became clear.
They went further, stressing that their team moved as quickly as possible once they began investigating Chans mental condition.
According to the court filing, defense expert Dr. Michelle Ayala ultimately concluded that Chan suffers from a serious mental disorder.
The situation is complicated further by Chans own actions behind the scenes. In a handwritten letter sent directly to the court on December 20, he made it clear that he is demanding a speedy trial and does not want further delays.
He informed the court that he was reasserting his right to a speedy trial and explicitly stated that he had never waived that right, while also requesting that no additional continuances be granted. The court officially entered the letter into the record on December 29.
Chan is charged with one count of interstate domestic violence after allegedly traveling from Scarborough, Ontario to Florida in May 2025 and spending hours at Liv Morgans property. According to the criminal complaint, he flew to Orlando on May 26 the same day he received his passport and told customs officials he would be staying at the WWE Performance Center, despite the fact that the facility does not provide housing.
Four days later, authorities say he traveled several hours to Morgans home, circled the property multiple times, entered through the backyard, attempted to access the front door, and remained on the property for hours before leaving. Investigators say he left behind a handwritten note that included his full name, home address, and phone number. Part of that note read:
Chan was arrested by the FBI on June 3 after WWE security recognized him in surveillance footage from Morgans property and alerted authorities. He was formally indicted on June 25 and has remained incarcerated since his arrest, after failing multiple attempts to secure release while awaiting trial. If convicted, he faces up to five years in prison.
With the court now allowing the government to conduct its own psychiatric evaluation, the case appears headed for a prolonged legal battle over whether Chan can legally be considered responsible for his actions at all.
This ruling doesnt just delay the timeline it fundamentally shifts the direction of the case. Instead of focusing solely on what happened at Liv Morgans home, the courtroom battle may now center on competing expert opinions over Chans mental state and whether the law will even allow a jury to hear an insanity defense. The longer this process drags out, the more uncertain the final outcome becomes
Do you think the court should allow an insanity defense in a case like this, or should it be decided strictly on the actions themselves? Share your thoughts in the comments.
