T houg h t he D
. C
. Ci r cui t ha s not addres s ed t he s t andar d of proof appl i cabl e t o a S e ll he ar i ng , ot her 1 c irc u its an d a t l e a st o n e d istric t ju d g e o n this C o u rt h a v e a p p ro v e d o f t h e us e o f t h e c le a r a n d c o n v inc ing sta n d a rd
. S e e Un ited S ta te s v . A u stin , N o . 06

- 3 6 8 , 20 0 9 W L 9 1 0 1 8 7 , at * 2 n. 3 (D
. D
. C
. A p ri l 6, 20 0 9 ) ( no t i ng and ap p l y i ng the c le a r a n d c o n v inc ing sta n d a rd us e d b y the T e n th a n d S e c o n d C irc u its.) - 1 - UNI TED STATES OF AMERI CA,

v . AL EKSANDER AL EKSOV,

De fe nd ant. UN I TE D ST AT ES D I STR I CT C OU RT F O R T H E D IS T R IC T O F C O LU M B IA

Criminal No. 08-057-M (AK)

M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION The Gove rnment ask s t h i s C o u rt t o o rd er t h e i n v o l u n t ary

m ed i ca t i o no f d ef

en d an tAl eksande r Al e ks ov(“ De fe nd ant” or

“ Al e ks ov ” ), wh o su ff

e rs fr om m e nta l il lne ss, to r e nd e r h im c omp e te nt t o stand trial. Pursuant to Sell v. United States , 539 U.S. 166, 180, 123 S.Ct . 2174, 156 L .Ed.2d 197 (2003), this Court must consider whethe r involuntary medication is m ed ically appropr iate and
nece ssary to significa

ntly further important g overnme nt interests. Up o n co n sideration of the pleading s, the rec ord, and the ar g uments and evide nce pr esente d at the Apr il 20, 2009 Se ll h ea ri n g, the Court conclude s that the Gover nmen t h as shown by

clea r and c onvincing evidenc e that the 1 standards unde r Se ll have been met, and involuntary medication is requir ed. The Gover nment’s ora l motion to i nvoluntarily

medicate the Def

endant is there fore granted
.- 2 -

I. Bac kgr ound On J anuar

y 28, 2008, it is allege d that Aleksov appro ached two uniformed Sec ret Servic e of fi c e rs jus t outsi de the g a te s o f t he Whit e Ho us e and

state d th a t he wa

nte d to kil l th e pr e sid e nt. (Govt.’s Mem. [11] at 1.) When asked to repe at what he had just said, Aleksov alleg edly repe ated the statement. (

Id. ) T he De fe nd ant w a s arr e ste d f or makin g thr e a ts a g a ins t t he pr e sid e nt, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 871. A searc h incident to a rre st r evea led a small knife amonghis personal belong ings. (

Id. ) The D efe ndant was a rra igne d on J anuar

y 29, 2008. On Fe bruar

y 6, 2008, the Court order ed the Def endant c ommitt ed to the Attorne y Gene ral for the pur

pose of a compe tency

evaluation. The Def

endant wa s evaluated at the F eder al Medica l F a c ili ty De ve ns in Ay e r, Ma ssa c hu se tts , and the fo re ns ic re po rt wa s a uth or e d by Sha

wn E. Cha nn e ll, Ph
. D , o nA p r il 9, 2008. ( See For ensic Repor t [ 12].) The repor

t concluded tha

t Defe ndant’s delusional beliefs c aused D efe ndant not to have a rational understanding of court proce eding s and that Def endant wa s not capa

ble of a ssisti ng his attorney in his defen s e. (

Id. a t 8. ) D r. Cha

nn e ll fu rt he r n ote d t h a t b e c a

u s e D e f e n d an t d i d n o t h a v e an y i n s i g h t i n t o h i s i l l n e s s an d w a s o p p o s e d to taking medication, involuntary medication mig ht n ee d t o b e p ursued in the f uture to re store competenc y . (

Id. ) The repor

t r ecommende d that Def

endant be committed f

or further evaluation and treatment for re storation of compe tency . ( Id. ) On May 19, 2008, this Court held a competenc y hear ing a nd subsequently

found De fenda

nt to b e in c o mp e te n t. T h e Co u rt f u rth e r o r d e r e d th a t D e f

e n d an t b e r e tu

r n e d to th e c u s to dy o f

the Attorney Gene ral for

further treatment a

n d a c o mp e tency

restoration study . Def

endant wa s evaluated at the F eder al Medica l Center in B utner, North Carolina. I n a report dated November 13, 2008 that
was a uthored by

Adeirde Stribli ng , Ph.D. and Kwanna W illiamson, M.D., Def endant wa s diag nosed as Schizophrenic, Para

noid Ty pe. ( See For ensic repor

t [7] at 9.) The re port found that De fenda ntT h e R e p o rt su rm ise d tha t ex p e c te d e ff ic a c y in this c a se sh o u ld a p p ro a c h a p p ro x im a te ly 7 0 % . ( I d. ) 2 - 3 - re qu ir e s tr e a tme nt w ithanti ps y c ho tic me dic a tio n, that hi s is no t cur re ntl y c omp e te nt to c on se nt t o
or re fu se su c h treatm e nt, and that no le ss i ntr

us ive a lte rn a tiv e s are a va ila ble to a dd re ss h is n e e ds
. ( Id. at 19.) The repor

t further conclude d that there is a substant i al p ro b ab i l i ty that Def endant’ s 2 capa city can be restore d with a per iod of treatment with antipsy chotic medication. ( Id. ) At a Nove mber 20, 2008, Competenc y Status Hearing , Def

endant or a ll y

o p p o sed involuntary medication and r equeste d a Se ll hear ing. The C ourt order ed brie fing and held a Se ll he ari ngon Ap ri l 20 , 200 9. At the he ari ng , the Go ve rnme nt pr e se nte d te sti mony fr om D r. Str ibl ing , s ta ff

ps y c ho log ist and Dr
. W i lliamson, staff psy chiatrist, via video- confe renc e fr om the Fe dera l Medical Center at B u t n e r . D r . S t r i b l i n g , w h o t h e C o u rt qu a l i f i e d a s an e x p e rt i n t h e ar e a o f d e t e r m i n i n g c o mp e t e n c y, testified that in her opinion and to a medical de g ree o f ce rt ainty , Def endant suff

ere d from Schizophrenia, Paranoid ty pe. In particula

r, Dr. Stribling testif

i ed that De fenda

nt suffer s from biza rr e de lus ion s th a t are , at le a st i n p art , in te rt wi ned with h is und e rs tand ingof the c ri min a l c a se ag ainst him and that Defe ndant is unable to separate his delusions from the case. The doctor fur ther testified that Def

endant’ s preoc cupation with his delusions leave him below the thresh o ld for
c omp e te nc y , b ut t

hat it is sub sta

nti a lly lik e ly tha

t med ic a tio n will sig nif

ic antl y imp ro ve his a

bil ity to aid counsel a

nd understand the nature of the case . Dr. Stribli ng also testified that potential side eff ects fr om the proposed medic ation can be monitored and, if ne cessary , treated with other medication or by

stopping the tre atment per iodically . Dr. Willi amson, who wa s qual i fi ed by the Court a s an e xpe rt

in t he dia g no sis and

tr e a tme nt o f m ent al ill ne ss, te sti fi e d th a t tr e a tme nt w ith antipsy chotic medica

tion was medically

nece ssary

and that possible side-e ffe cts could be monitored
and targ e te d w ithoth e r me dic a tio n if ne e de d. Dr . Williamso n opin e d tha t the pr ob a bil ity of su c c e ss- 4 -

of trea tment would approa ch 70%.

II. Discussion The g overnme nt ma

y administer antipsy chotic medication to re nder a mentally ill defenda

nt competent to stand trial on se rious crim i n al ch ar ges if: (1) doingso advanc es important g overnme ntal interests to include bring ing to tria l an individual acc used of a s er i o u s crime a nd assuring him of a fa ir t ri al; (2) the me dication is substantially likely to rende r the de fenda

nt competent a

nd substantially

unlikely to have sid e eff

ects that will interfe re sig nificantly with the defe ndant’s abil i t y to assist counsel in conducting a trial de fense ; (3) alter native less intrusive tr e a tme n t s ar e u n l i k e l y

t o a c h i e v e t h e s a m e r e s u l t ; an d ( 4 ) a d m i n i s t r a t i o no f

t h e m e d i c a t i o nis medically appropr iate. Sell v. United States , 539 U.S. 166, 180, 123 S.C t. 2174, 156 L .Ed.2d 197 (2003). On the first fac tor, whether involuntary medication will a dvance an important g overnme ntal interest such a

bring ing to tria l an individual acc used of a ser i o u s cr i m e, the Court finds that the imp or tant g ov e rnme nta l in te re st o f b ri ng ingDe fe nd ant, wh o is c ha rg e d w ith the ve ry

se ri ou s c ri me of threatening to kill the President of the United States, to tr ial will be advanc ed b y involuntary medication. In making th i s d et er m ination, the Court has conscie ntiously considere d the
c ir c umstan c e s o f t

he ins tant c a se and

De fe nd ant’ s c ur

re nt s itu a tio n. As wa s n ote d b y de fe ns e counsel at the Se ll hear i n g an d i n Def endant’ s Opposition, Defenda nt has bee n confine d for a substantial period of time – what is now approxim ately six teen months. As roug hly calc ulated by defe nse counse l, Defe ndant would likely fac e a se ntencingrang e of a ny wher e fr om 10 to 33 months ba se d o n th e g uid e lin e s. De fe nd ant h a s th e re fo re a lr e a dy se rv e d a c on sid e ra

ble po rt ion of

a po ssi ble sentenc e should he be convicted. Mor eover , a plea barg ain might further reduc e the sentenc e to the- 5 -

po int wh e re a se nte nc e of

tim e se rv e d a

nd su pe rv ise d r e le a se wo uld

be a re a lis tic po ssi bil ity . I t is
un c le ar, ho we ve r, wh e the r D e fe nd ant, wi tho ut m e dic a tio n r e nd e ri nghim c omp e te nt, wo uld

wi thi n
a re a so na ble tim e pe ri od

re g a in h is l ibe rt

y by be inga ble to s tand

tr ia l and , if

c on vic te d, se rv e ou t hi s sentenc e. Mag istrate J udg e Fa cciola c onfronted a simil ar situation in United States v. Orloski , 554 F . Su pp .2 d 4 (D .D .C. 20 08 ), and c on c lud e d tha t whe re the re wa s no ce rt a int y of the de fe nd ant’ s c ivi l commitment an d wher e the de fenda nt’s resistanc e to involuntary medication wa s based on a delusional sy stem, involuntary medication wa s nece ssary for a prompt resolution of the matter and was ultimately

in the interest of both the g overnme nt and the def endant. S ee id. at 8
. T h i s Court
c on c ur s w ith and

a do pts Judg e F a c c iol a ’s a pt a na ly sis of the c omp e tin g int e re sts in t hat c a se , w ho se fac ts and posture sig nificantly mirror the instant ca se. See id. at 7-8 (de scribing the conf lict inherent in an incompetent de fenda nt refusingmedication and there fore fac ing the possibilit y of conf inement bey ond a potential sente nce fo r t h e crime with which he ha s been c harg ed and c oncluding that involuntary

medication wa s ultim ately in the defendant’s interest.) The Court t here fore conclude s tha t th e im

p o rta n t g o v e r n me n ta l in te r e s t in b r in g in g D e f e n d an t to tr ia l w il l b e a d v an ced by involuntary

medication, and that a re storation of compe tency will allow for a pr ompt resolution of the ma tte r. Th is i s u lti ma te ly in D e fe nd ant’ s o wn

int e re st. T h ere is litt le ar g ument from De fenda nt rebutting the Gover

nment on the sec ond thro u gh fourth fa ctors, and Def

endant did not prese nt a

ny rebuttal evidenc e at the Se ll hear ing. T he Court is convinced th at al l three fac tors have be en satisfied by the Gover

nment by clea r and c onvincing evidenc e. As detailed in the November 13, 2009 fore nsic repor t a nd confirme d t h ro u gh ex pert testimony at the Se ll he ari ng , th e anti ps y c ho tic me dic a tio n p ro po se d f or treatmen t is su

bs tanti a lly likely to rende r t h e De fe n dant compete nt to stand trial. ( See For ensic re port [7] at 15, 19.) The doctors have conclude d that t h e eff icac y of such tre atment would appr oach 70% . ( Id. at 19)- 6 -

Fur thermore , both doctors testified and c oncluded in their repor t that pote ntial side eff

ects c ould be monitored cl o s el y an d m i t igated upon the first showingof sy mptoms. (

Id. at 15-19.) T he Court there fore finds that the administration of such dr ug s is substantially

unlikely to ha ve side eff

ects that would interfe re sig nificantly with the Def

en d an t ’s ability

to assist counsel in conducting a trial de fe ns e . A lte rn a tiv e le ss int ru siv e tr e a tme nts to me dic a tio n wo uld no t be lik e ly to a c hie ve the same results, as the doctors have testified and conclude d that medication is the on ly primary treatment for Def endant’ s condition that would rende r hi m competent to st and trial. ( See id. at 15.) F inally , the Court concludes that the administration of medication is medically nece ssary , as it is the common and standa

rd cour se of tre atment for D efe ndant’s psy chotic condition. ( Id. )

III. Conclusion For the fore g oing r easons, the Court w il l o r d e r th at the De fenda

nt be involuntarily

medicate d. The Gove rnment, in consultation with the Fe dera l Medical Center , will be require d to provide the Court wi th a de ta ile d o rd e r t

hat se ts fort h th e pr oto c ol t he Me dic a l Ce nte r p lans to f oll owin medicatingthe Def

endant involuntarily

an d t h e t ime line for a

pprising the Court of the status of pr og re ss m a de . Su c h p ro toc ol s ha ll be su bmitte d to the Court wi thi n 1 0 d ay s o f t

he date of

thi s Memorandum Opinion. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is filed conte mporane ously here with.

Date d: M ay

7th , 2 00 9 /s/ A L A N K A Y UNI TED STATES MAGI STRATE J UDGE