Opinion ID: 2708848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Importance of Governmental Interest

Text: We address first whether the Government established an important interest, which, the Court has stated, includes “bringing to trial an individual accused of a serious crime.” Sell, 539 U.S. at 180. Most courts to have addressed the issue have held that the central consideration when deciding whether a particular crime is “serious” is the penalty authorized by statute for the particular offense. See, e.g., Chatmon, 718 F.3d at 374 (noting that a crime with a statutory mandatory minimum of ten years is serious); United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538, 549 (6th Cir. 2008) (same); United States v. Palmer, 507 F.3d 300, 303-04 (5th Cir. 2007) (holding that a crime with a maximum of ten years is serious even if defendant faced a guidelines range of only fifteen to twenty-one months). In Sell, the Court also noted that special circumstances may exist which would lessen the importance of the governmental interest at stake. These include the defendant’s lengthy confinement in an institution for the mentally ill, the potential for future confinement if the defendant regains competency 10 No. 13-3281 and the amount of time a defendant already has been confined while the charges have been pending. Sell, 539 U.S. at 180. In making the determination whether such special circumstances exist, the district court must consider the facts of the individual case. Id.; United States v. Grigsby, 712 F.3d 964, 969 (6th Cir. 2013); United States v. White, 620 F.3d 401, 411 (4th Cir. 2010). In this respect, although the importance of the Government’s interest is established, as a general matter, by the maximum statutory penalty, after the Supreme Court’s decisions in Rita v. United States, 551 U.S. 338 (2007), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), it is appropriate at this point in its analysis for the district court to undertake, with the assistance of counsel, an estimate of the defendant’s probable guideline range. See Grigsby, 712 F.3d at 973. The district court’s order does not reflect that it considered either the length of Mr. Debenedetto’s sentence, by reference to the statutory maximum and to the Guidelines, or Mr. Debenedetto’s current or future confinement in concluding that the Government had established by clear and convincing evidence that it had an important interest in bringing Mr. Debenedetto to trial. Counsel for Mr. Debenedetto initially argued that this element of Sell was not satisfied because his client already had been in custody for the amount of time he likely would serve if convicted, and, therefore, there could be no important governmental interest at stake in forcibly medicating him to allow him to stand trial. Although the parties put forward differing views of the length of sentence Mr. Debenedetto might serve, the court did not ask counsel to elaborate on how they reached their calculations, and the issue was not addressed further. Moreover, although the subject of No. 13-3281 11 involuntary confinement was broached by the court, and the likelihood could weigh against the importance of the Government’s interest here, the district court’s order similarly was silent on how this special circumstance factored into its analysis.