Opinion ID: 2647451
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Possibility of Lengthy Confinement Resulting

Text: from Civil Commitment As noted above, Sell makes clear that a district court may appropriately consider the likelihood of a defendant’s civil confinement in determining whether to order the forcible medication of a defendant to restore his competency to stand trial. On this point, the Court pointed out that “[t]he potential for future confinement affects, but does not totally undermine, the strength of the need for prosecution.” Sell, 539 U.S. at 180. This is unsurprising because a “defendant’s failure to take drugs voluntarily . . . may mean lengthy confinement in an institution for the mentally ill—and that would diminish the risks that ordinarily attach to freeing without punishment one who has committed a serious crime.” Id. Here, the District Court declined to analyze the issue or make a finding concerning the likelihood of civil confinement. Dillon now contends this was error. To begin with, the District Court correctly concluded that Dillon failed to raise this argument during its proceedings. In his opposition to the Government’s motion for involuntary medication, Dillon identified his pretrial custody and his purported non-dangerousness as “special circumstances” undermining the prosecutorial interest; he did not mention the prospect of civil confinement. Def.’s Opp’n to Involuntary Medication, reprinted in J.A. 12-21. And Dillon failed to pursue the point during arguments before the District Court, even though the Government mentioned the issue in its brief and at argument. See Gov’t’s Mem. at 18, reprinted in J.A. 39; Tr. of Oral Arg. (Apr. 26, 2013) at 13-14, reprinted in J.A. 212-13. The issue was never joined. It is also important to note that the District Court did not in any way foreclose Dillon from arguing the civil15 commitment point or from introducing evidence that his confinement was likely. Thus, Dillon had ample opportunity to cross-examine the Government’s witnesses and to call his own. Tr. of Hr’g (Apr. 17, 2013) at 25, 95, 136, reprinted in J.A. 82, 152, 193. In short, the record provides no basis for Dillon’s statement to this court that the District Court “foreclosed consideration” of civil commitment. See Br. of Appellant at 27 n.8. Under our well-established precedent, Dillon’s civil-confinement argument was forfeited when he failed to raise it with the District Court. See, e.g., Potter v. District of Columbia, 558 F.3d 542, 550 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“It is well settled that issues and legal theories not asserted at the District Court level ordinarily will not be heard on appeal.” (quoting District of Columbia v. Air Fla., Inc., 750 F.2d 1077, 1084 (D.C. Cir. 1984))). Because Dillon did not argue the point before the District Court, and because the District Court did not address it, we generally inquire no further into the matter. See Dyson v. District of Columbia, 710 F.3d 415, 419 (D.C. Cir. 2013). At oral argument before this court, however, counsel for Dillon asked us to review the District Court’s omission for plain error. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), we can correct unpreserved error only when there is (1) “error,” (2) that is “plain,” and (3) that “affects substantial rights.” United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 732 (1993) (alteration omitted). If all three conditions are met, we may “notice a forfeited error, but only if (4) the error ‘seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.’” Johnson v. United States, 520 U.S. 461, 467 (1997) (quoting Olano, 507 U.S. at 732). See generally EDWARDS, ELLIOTT & LEVY, FEDERAL STANDARDS OF REVIEW ch. VIII (2d ed. 2013). 16 Sell leaves little doubt that the prospect of a defendant’s lengthy civil confinement is a focal point of the “special circumstances” analysis. 539 U.S. at 180. However, even if the District Court plainly erred when it declined to analyze the possibility of civil confinement, this omission did not affect Dillon’s substantial rights under the third prong of Olano because Dillon has not shown “a reasonable probability that, but for the error claimed, the result of the proceeding would have been different.” United States v. Dominguez Benitez, 542 U.S. 74, 82 (2004) (quotation and alteration omitted); EDWARDS, ELLIOTT & LEVY, supra, at 105. We rest this conclusion on the record and on Dillon’s own arguments: First, the record as it stands offers insufficient support for the proposition that Dillon is likely to be civilly confined (as opposed to committed as an outpatient); and, second, Dillon’s consistent assertions that he is not dangerous serve only to dilute any argument that Dillon is likely to be civilly confined. We amplify these two points below. The record before us does not support a finding that Dillon is likely to be civilly confined. Although the Sell Court mentioned “civil commitment,” it is clear from the context that the Court was concerned with the prospect of civil confinement. See 539 U.S. at 180 (“The defendant’s failure to take drugs voluntarily . . . may mean lengthy confinement . . . that would diminish the risks that ordinarily attach to freeing without punishment one who has committed a serious crime.” (emphasis added)). The D.C. Mental Health Commission recommended to the D.C. Superior Court that Dillon be civilly committed on an outpatient basis. Gov’t’s Mem. at 12, reprinted in J.A. 33. Even though this report does not appear in the record, we know from the applicable statute that the Commission can recommend commitment only after finding that Dillon was “mentally ill, and because of the illness is 17 likely to injure himself or other persons if not committed.” D.C. CODE § 21-544. But we also know that the Commission recommended outpatient treatment, which indicates that the Commission considered Dillon’s risk to the public at large to be minimal. See D.C. CODE § 21-545(b)(2) (authorizing the D.C. Superior Court to commit a mentally ill person to “the Department or to any other facility, hospital, or mental health provider that the Court believes is the least restrictive alternative consistent with the best interests of the person and the public” (emphasis added)). Although Dillon asserts that his outpatient status will be revoked if and when he does not take his medication, Br. of Appellant at 26-27, the applicable statute makes clear that revocation of an individual’s outpatient status requires a judicial finding that “a more restrictive treatment alternative is required to prevent the person from injuring himself or others.” D.C. CODE § 21-548(a) (emphasis added). Simply put, Dillon’s outpatient civil commitment does not imply that civil confinement is probable, as there would have to be a judicial finding by clear and convincing evidence that his confinement is “required to prevent [Dillon] from injuring himself or others.” Id. Furthermore, Dillon’s own assertions critically weaken his civil-confinement argument. Beginning with his opposition to the Government’s motion before the trial court, Dillon has consistently stated that he poses no significant danger to himself or others. See Def.’s Opp’n to Involuntary Medication at 6, reprinted in J.A. 17 (“Dillon has no history of violence . . . .”); Tr. of Oral Arg. (Apr. 26, 2013) at 32, reprinted in J.A. 231 (“Nobody thinks [Dillon is] particularly dangerous to himself or others . . . .”); Br. of Appellant at 1819, 24, 27. Assuming that Dillon is correct that he presents, at most, a minimal risk to himself or others, this fact would 18 make it less likely that Dillon will be confined. See 18 U.S.C. § 4246(d) (authorizing civil confinement when a “court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is presently suffering from a mental disease or defect as a result of which his release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another” (emphasis added)); D.C. CODE § 21-545(b)(2) (“If the Court or jury finds that the person is mentally ill and, because of that mental illness, is likely to injure himself or others if not committed, the Court may order the person’s commitment to the Department or to any other facility, hospital, or mental health provider that the Court believes is the least restrictive alternative consistent with the best interests of the person and the public.” (emphasis added)). Dillon’s plain-error challenge thus fails for want of showing a “reasonable probability” that, but for the District Court’s failure to consider civil confinement, Dillon would not be subject to involuntary medication. The record before us does not offer a basis for finding that Dillon is dangerous enough to lead to his being civilly confined (as opposed to committed as an outpatient). See Br. of Appellant at 22 (“Obviously, the level of appellant’s dangerousness was marginal; otherwise the D.C. Mental Health Commission would not have recommended commitment to an outpatient treatment program.”). And Dillon’s consistent claims that he is not dangerous undercut the notion that a better developed record would be any different.