Opinion ID: 2803527
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Sell v. United States and United States v. Diaz

Text: In Sell v. United States, the Supreme Court held 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.” 539 U.S. at 178–79, 123 S. Ct. at 2183 (internal quotation marks omitted). As noted above, when the government seeks to have a defendant involuntarily medicated in order to restore him to competency, a court must consider four factors: (1) whether the government has an important interest in proceeding to trial; (2) whether involuntary medication would significantly further that interest; (3) whether involuntary medication is necessary to further the government’s interest; and (4) whether involuntary medication is medically appropriate, meaning that it is in the patient’s best medical interest in light of his medical condition. Id. at 180–81, 123 S. Ct. at 2184-85.5 5 Before even applying the Sell factors, a district court first should consider whether involuntary medication is appropriate on the ground that the defendant poses a danger to himself or others. Sell, 539 U.S. at 183, 123 S. Ct. at 2186 (2003). Involuntary medication is permitted 13 Case: 14-14469 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 14 of 18 In United States v. Diaz, this Court held that a defendant awaiting trial on charges of armed robbery and firearms offenses could be involuntarily medicated to restore him to competency to stand trial. 630 F.3d at 1335. In Diaz, a defendant suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, incarcerated at Springfield under the care of, among others, Dr. Sarrazin, refused to take antipsychotic medication. Id. at 1318-25. The government moved for involuntary medication under Sell, which the district court granted. This Court held that the district court did not clearly err in ordering involuntary medication of the defendant. Id. at 1335. The defendant Diaz argued that the government could not carry its burden on the second and third Sell factors. Id. Looking to the wealth of evidence available from the Sell hearing about defendant Diaz, we stated: (1) “the district court did not clearly err because the evidence strongly demonstrates a substantial likelihood that anti-psychotic medication will restore Diaz to competency and is not substantially likely to cause side effects that would interfere with Diaz’s ability to assist counsel,” id. at 1332; and (2) “[g]iven the ample evidence . . . that [defendant] has . . . refused to take medication, and that alternative treatments . . . would be ineffective, the district in those situations under Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S. Ct. 1028 (1990). Here, the BOP has determined that Ruark does not pose a danger so long as he remains in a penal setting. Thus, involuntary medication under Harper would not be appropriate at this time. 14 Case: 14-14469 Date Filed: 05/27/2015 Page: 15 of 18 court did not clearly err in concluding that . . . involuntary medication is necessary to render [defendant] competent to stand trial.” Id. at 1335-36.