Quote:

---

US v Sell, Case No. 02-5664

6-3 ruling by US Supreme Court says prosecutors can forcibly medicate defendants

The Magistrate had him examined at a United States Medi-cal Center for Federal Prisoners (Medical Center), found him men-tally incompetent to stand trial, and ordered his hospitalization to determine whether he would attain the capacity to allow his trial to proceed. While there, Sell refused the staff’s recommendation to take antipsychotic medication. Medical Center authorities decided to al-low involuntary medication, which Sell challenged in court. The Magistrate authorized forced administration of antipsychotic drugs, finding that Sell was a danger to himself and others, that medication was the only way to render him less dangerous, that any serious side effects could be ameliorated, that the benefits to Sell outweighed the risks, and that the drugs were substantially likely to return Sell to competence. In affirming, the District Court found the Magistrate’s dangerousness finding clearly erroneous but concluded that medication
was the only viable hope of rendering Sell competent to stand trial and was necessary to serve the Government’s interest in obtaining
an adjudication of his guilt or innocence. The Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Under the framework of Washington v. Harper, 494 U. S. 210, and Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U. S. 127, the Constitution permits the Government
involuntarily to administer antipsychotic drugs to render a mentally ill defendant competent to stand trial.

This standard will permit forced medication solely for trial competence purposes in certain instances. But these instances may be rare, because the standard says or fairly implies the following: First, a court must find that important governmental interests are at stake.

Second, the court must conclude that forced medication will significantly further those concomitant state interests. It must find that medication is substantially likely to render
the defendant competent to stand trial and substantially unlikely to have side effects that will interfere significantly with the defen-dant’s ability to assist counsel in conducting a defense. Third, the court must conclude that involuntary medication is necessary to fur-ther those interests and find that alternative, less intrusive treat-ments are unlikely to achieve substantially the same results. Fourth, the court must conclude that administering the drugs is medically appropriate.

After noting that Sell subsequently had “been returned to an open ward,” the District Court held the Magistrate’s “dangerousness” finding “clearly erroneous.”

Nonetheless, the District Court affirmed the Magis-trate’s order permitting Sell’s involuntary medication. The court wrote that “anti-psychotic drugs are medically appropriate,” that “they represent the only viable hope of rendering defendant competent to stand trial,” and that “administration of such drugs appears necessary to serve the government’s compelling interest in obtaining an adjudication of defendant’s guilt or innocence of numerous and serious charges”.

We turn now to the basic question presented: Does forced administration of antipsychotic drugs to render Sell competent to stand trial unconstitutionally deprive him of his “liberty” to reject medical treatment?

In Harper, this Court recognized that an individual has a “significant” constitutionally protected “liberty interest” in “avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs.” 494 U. S., at 221.

The Court concluded that, in the circumstances, the state law authorizing involuntary treatment amounted to a consti-tutionally permissible “accommodation between an inmate’s liberty interest in avoiding the forced administra-tion of antipsychotic drugs and the State’s interests in providing appropriate medical treatment to reduce the danger that an inmate suffering from a serious mental disorder represents to himself or others.” Id., at 236.

In Riggins, the Court repeated that an individual has a constitutionally protected liberty “interest in avoiding involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs”—an interest that only an “essential” or “overriding” state interest might overcome. 504 U. S., at 134, 135.

For another thing, courts typically address involuntary medical treatment as a civil matter, and justify it on these alternative, Harper-type grounds. Every State provides avenues through which, for example, a doctor or institu-tion can seek appointment of a guardian with the power to make a decision authorizing medication—when in the best interests of a patient who lacks the mental competence to make such a decision. And courts, in civil proceedings, may authorize involuntary medication where the patient’s failure to accept treatment threatens injury to the patient or others.

If a court authorizes medication on these alternative grounds, the need to consider authorization on trial com-petence grounds will likely disappear.

For these reasons, we believe that the present orders authorizing forced administration of antipsychotic drugs cannot stand. The Government may pursue its request for forced medication on the grounds discussed in this opin-ion, including grounds related to the danger Sell poses to himself or others. Since Sell’s medical condition may have changed over time, the Government should do so on the basis of current circumstances.
The judgment of the Eighth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

www.cognitiveliberty.org/dll/sell_index.htm


Captain Dr Sell US Army Reserves says the US Govt murdered 80 Christians in church - THAT'S CRAZYTALK!

Waco Rules of Engagement: Video of Soldiers Machinegunning Survivors at Waco Church
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=waco&gbv=2&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&t
ab=iv#

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And yes, I already know they bankrolled Mitt Romney, and about Narvin's misadventures in the Dominican Republic, but crosscheck and start diggin, old friend...

---

Quote:

---

"Knoxville must be the most corrupt city on earth. People worry about the
national government but it's the local government people need to fear."
City Councilmember Carlene Malone to Pirate News TV

"Sitting on Council, I was in the presence of evil. There was just darkness. Hopelessness."
Knoxville councilmember Carlene Malone, Metro Pulse, "Malone Alone", December 13, 2001

---