Opinion ID: 61618
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Forced medication

Text: Hudson next argues that the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department forcibly medicated him during trial by prescribing four different drugs simultaneously, which had the effect of rendering him lethargic and unable to focus on the testimony or make rational decisions. He contends that the prescribed medication denied him his right to the effective assistance of counsel, his right of confrontation, and his right to due process.6 The state habeas court extensively reviewed Hudson’s medical records from the Dallas County Jail, where Hudson was held awaiting trial. The state court noted that Hudson was first prescribed antidepressant medication in May 1999 after he complained to a jail psychiatrist about depression and an inability to sleep. Hudson’s trial began on February 28, 2000. The state court found that in the months prior to and during Hudson’s trial, he was prescribed in varying amounts the antidepressants Paxil, Trazodone, and Remeron, all of which are used to treat depression and can cause drowsiness, dizziness, confusion, fatigue, and/or abnormal dreams and thinking. 5 We note also that the prosecution report to which the affidavit was attached stated that it was Hudson who kicked in the victim’s door before the co-defendant shot the victim. 6 Although we have previously expressed some uncertainty whether a claim of involuntary medication is cognizable in habeas, Richardson v. Johnson, 256 F.3d 257, 259 (5th Cir. 2001), we need not, and do not, resolve that question here. 16 No. 07-70039 The state court found, however, that Hudson failed to show these drugs were forcibly administered. Instead, the court recognized a notation in the medical records showing that Hudson was permitted to keep the medications on his person, suggesting that he was self-medicating. The court further found no evidence in the record that Hudson ever requested that the medication be discontinued. Although Hudson had on at least one occasion refused medical treatment by a nurse, there was no indication Hudson ever attempted to refuse his medication. The state court also found no showing by Hudson that the medication harmed him. There was no evidence that Hudson ever complained to the medical personnel about excessive drowsiness or lethargy or that he was unable to think. Instead, the medical records showed that Hudson frequently complained about an inability to sleep. He reported that he would sleep for only a few hours each night and had been that way his whole life. Other medical notations showed that Hudson complained that the medication was having no effect on him. The state court found that just four days before trial started, Hudson reported sleeping only from 10:00 p.m. or 12:00 a.m. until 2:00 a.m. or 3:00 a.m. and that he engaged in only occasional day-time napping. Therefore, the court found incredible Hudson’s claims that the medication incapacitated him. The court also noted that defense counsel never expressed any concern about Hudson’s competency during trial. Moreover, the court found that the record did not support Hudson’s claim that the medication effectively prevented him from being present at trial, and the court quoted from a long colloquy between Hudson and defense counsel during voir dire showing that Hudson was consulted and actually participated in certain decisions to excuse prospective jurors. The court further noted that it did not observe Hudson to be sleepy during the trial. The court concluded that Hudson failed to show he could not 17 No. 07-70039 understand the proceedings and participate in his defense or that he was rendered incompetent due to his ingestion of medication. The district court agreed that Hudson failed to show he was involuntarily medicated and failed to explain how he was affected by the administration of medication by the state. The district court found that Hudson offered no evidence to controvert the state court’s findings, but merely asserted that because the medications were prescribed by the state while he was in state custody they were “in effect” involuntarily administered. The court concluded that the state habeas court’s findings were supported by the record and were neither unreasonable nor contrary to Supreme Court law. On appeal, Hudson argues that inmates have an interest in avoiding forcible ingestion of medication. He relies on Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 112 S. Ct. 1810 (1992), and Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S. Ct. 1028 (1990). In Riggins, the Supreme Court held that the forced administration of antipsychotic medication during Riggins’ trial, without a finding that the medication was medically appropriate and necessary for the defendant’s safety or the safety of others, or that there were no less intrusive means available to obtain an adjudication of guilt or innocence, violated Riggins’ due process rights. Riggins, 504 U.S. at 135–36, 112 S. Ct. at 1815. In Harper, the Court held that prison inmates have a due process liberty interest in avoiding the involuntary injection of antipsychotic drugs unless the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest. Harper, 494 U.S. at 227–28, 110 S. Ct. at 1039–40. Here, Hudson continues to insist that his medication was forcibly administered. He asserts that his own affidavit and the jail medical records support his contention that he was “heavily medicated.” He repeats his claim that the mere prescription of medication by jail medical staff results in a “coercive effect.” Hudson cites no authority for this proposition, and he ignores 18 No. 07-70039 the evidence cited by the state court and the district court that the medication was prompted by Hudson’s own complaints and that Hudson was allowed to keep the medication on his person, thereby suggesting that whether he took it was up to him. He offers no evidence whatsoever to contradict the state habeas court’s finding in this regard. Although he claims that the prescription of medication by state agents shows that the medication was “in effect[] administered involuntarily,” he ignores the evidence in the record that shows he knew how to refuse treatment. While in the Dallas County Jail Hudson signed a Refusal for Medical Assistance, declining to see the nurse. The same medical refusal form shows that a detainee could also refuse to take his prescription medication, which was not checked on the form. There is no evidence in the record that Hudson ever refused to take his medication or that he did not wish to take it. Moreover, Hudson also ignores the evidence cited by the state court and the district court that he told the jail medical staff that the medication had no effect on him and that he had problems with insomnia his whole life. Hudson is correct that the dosages of the three medications were adjusted just before trial began. The record shows that on February 24, 2000, Hudson was prescribed 40 mg of Paxil, 30 mg of Remeron, and 200 mg of Trazodone to be taken daily. This represented an increase in the Paxil and Remeron and no change in the Trazodone. A note one month later in March 2000, however, states that while taking the same dosages of each drug Hudson still reported that his “sleep is poor” and that he has only “brief spells of sleeping” from midnight to 4:00 a.m. There is simply no indication in the record that Hudson’s medication caused him to become sleepy, lethargic, or confused during his threeday trial, and Hudson offers nothing to contradict the findings of the state court or the district court. 19 No. 07-70039 Hudson also baldly asserts that the medication deprived him of the right to be present during his own trial. Mere conclusory allegations are insufficient to raise a constitutional issue in a habeas proceeding. Ross v. Estelle, 694 F.2d 1008, 1012 (5th Cir. 1983); see also Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir. 1993) (claims inadequately briefed are deemed abandoned on appeal). Moreover, Hudson ignores the state habeas court’s extensive recitation of Hudson’s colloquy with defense counsel during voir dire showing that Hudson discussed with counsel the defense’s strategy and process for selecting jurors. At one point, Hudson indicated that he agreed defense counsel liked one prospective juror but that counsel had agreed with the state to excuse the juror because Hudson did not want the person on the jury. Hudson also twice indicated on the record that he agreed with counsel’s strategy not to call defensive witnesses at the guilt/innocence and punishment phases of trial and that he also agreed that he would give up his right to testify in his own behalf. The colloquies with counsel show that Hudson was consulted during the voir dire and trial process and was able to participate in assisting with his defense. Hudson fails to show that reasonable jurists would disagree with the district court’s assessment of any of his claims or that his claims deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327, 123 S. Ct. at 1034. Accordingly, we DENY Hudson’s request for a COA. 20