Document: 539 U.S. 166 SELLv.UNITED STATES. No. 02-5664. Supreme Court of United States. Argued March 3, 2003. Decided June 16, A Federal Magistrate Judge (Magistrate) initially found petitioner Sell, who has a long history mental illness, competent to stand trial for fraud and released him on bail, but later revoked bail because Sell's condition had worsened. Sell subsequently asked the reconsider his competence attempted murder. The examined at States Medical Center Prisoners (Medical Center), mentally incompetent trial, ordered hospitalization determine whether he would attain capacity allow proceed. While there, refused staff's recommendation take antipsychotic medication. authorities decided involuntary medication, which challenged in court. authorized forced administration drugs, finding that was danger himself others, medication only way render less dangerous, any serious side effects could be ameliorated, benefits outweighed risks, drugs were substantially likely return competence. In affirming, District Magistrate's dangerousness clearly erroneous concluded viable hope rendering necessary serve Government's interest obtaining an adjudication guilt or innocence. Eighth Circuit affirmed. Focusing solely charges, it Government essential bringing treatment medically appropriate, medical evidence indicated reasonable probability fairly able participate trial. Held: 1. jurisdiction hear appeal. Court's pretrial order appealable "collateral order" within exceptions rule final judgments are appealable. conclusively determines disputed question legal right avoid Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468. It also resolves important issue, raises questions clear constitutional importance. Ibid. And issue is effectively unreviewable appeal from judgment, ibid., since, by time will have undergone medication—the very harm seeks cannot undone acquittal. Pp. 175-177. 2. Under framework Washington Harper, 494 210, Riggins Nevada, 504 127, Constitution permits involuntarily administer ill defendant criminal charges if unlikely may undermine trial's fairness, and, taking account intrusive alternatives, significantly further governmental trial-related interests. 177-183. (a) This standard permit purposes certain instances. But these instances rare, says implies following: First, court must find interests stake. individual accused crime important. However, courts consider each case's facts evaluating this special circumstances lessen its importance, e. g., defendant's refusal mean lengthy confinement institution, diminish risks freeing without punishment one committed crime. addition substantial timely prosecution, concomitant assuring fair Second, conclude those state interfere with ability assist counsel conducting defense. Third, alternative, treatments achieve same results. Fourth, administering appropriate. 177-181. (b) applying standards trying If authorizes alternative ground, such as dangerousness, need authorization grounds disappear. There often strong reasons first. For thing, inquiry into permissible nondangerous usually more objective manageable than competent. another, typically address civil matter. decides grounds, findings help inform expert opinion judicial decisionmaking respect request purposes. 181-183. 3. erred approving Because held erroneous, assumes not dangerous. hypothetical assumption, reaching conclusion. did legally justified alone. Moreover, experts hearing focused mainly dangerousness. failure focus well mattered, tell medication's fairness necessarily relevant when primarily issue. Finally, lower been confined time, medicated might result confinement. Those factors, first receive credit toward sentence served second reduces likelihood committing future crimes, moderate importance prosecution. pursue discussed should do so based current circumstances, since changed over time. 183-186. 282 F. 3d 560, vacated remanded. BREYER, J., delivered Court, REHNQUIST, C. STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, JJ., joined. SCALIA, filed dissenting opinion, O'CONNOR THOMAS, joined, post, p. 186. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR EIGHTH CIRCUIT Barry A. Short, appointment 537 1087, argued cause petitioner. With briefs Neal Perryman, Mark N. Light, Norman London, Lee T. Lawless. Deputy Solicitor General Dreeben Olson, Assistant Attorney Chertoff, Lisa Schiavo Blatt, Joseph Wyderko.* JUSTICE BREYER Court. 1 presented defendant—in serious, nonviolent, crimes. We allows even against will, limited i. e., upon satisfaction conditions we shall describe. Appeals requisite existed case, vacate judgment. 2 * 3 Petitioner Charles once practicing dentist, unfortunate illness. September 1982, after telling doctors gold used fillings contaminated communists, hospitalized, treated discharged. App. 146. 1984, called police say leopard outside office boarding bus, then shoot him. Id., 148; Record, Forensic Report, (June 20, 1997) (Sealed). again hospitalized released. On various occasions, complained public officials, example, State Governor chief, kill 4. April 1997, told law enforcement personnel "spoke God last night," "God me every [Federal Bureau Investigation] person I kill, soul saved." 4 May charged submitting fictitious insurance claims payment. See 18 § 1035(a)(2). (Magistrate), ordering psychiatric examination, "currently competent," noted experience "a psychotic episode" future. 321. bail. grand jury produced superseding indictment charging wife 56 counts mail fraud, 6 Medicaid count money laundering. 12-22. 5 early 1998, claimed sought intimidate witness. revocation hearing. behavior initial appearance was, judge's words, "`totally out control,'" involving "screaming shouting," use "personal insults" "racial epithets," spitting "in face." 322. psychiatrist reported sleep expected Investigation (FBI) "`come busting through door,'" After considering report other testimony, issued new attempting murder FBI agent arrested former employee planned testify case. 23-29. cases joined 7 1999, sent Center) Springfield, Missouri, examination. Subsequently "mentally trial." 323. He "be treatment" up four months, "to there [Sell] proceed." 8 Two months later, staff recommended so. permission will. That effort subject present proceedings. B 9 here review five hierarchically determinations. institutional involuntarily. reviewing considered prior history; persecutional beliefs (for officials suppress knowledge about events Waco, Texas, Alaska silence him); opinions "Sell's symptoms point diagnosis Delusional Disorder . underlying Schizophrenic Process"); concerns "the persistence Dr. belief Courts, FBI, federal government general him"); expert's (that suffered delusional disorder, which, view, "medication rarely helps"); own views, laypersons know (to effect suffer illness). 147-150. 10 both (1) treat illness," (2) "become 145. added "dangerous threats delusions outside, in[side] prison" "[a]ble function" prison "open population." 144. 11 administratively reviewed determination psychiatrist. Prisons official hearing, referred delusions, differences professional proper classification treatment, represents intervention "most likely" "ameliorate" symptoms; "less restrictive interventions" "unlikely" work; "pervasive belief" "being targeted nefarious actions parties," along "current conspiracy commit murder," made potential risk safety others community." 154-155. "upheld" "hearing officer's decision benefit utilization anti-psychotic medication." 157. 12 July motion contesting Center's drugs. introduced most part replicated administrative two exceptions. witnesses explored effectiveness thoroughly. testified incident took place proceedings completed. approached nurses, suggested love her, criticized her having nothing him, inappropriate, "`I can't it.'" 168-170, 325. remarks acted ways indicating kind conduct continue. that, given behavior, diagnosis, beliefs, boundary-breaching incidents sort harmless coupled inability unwillingness desist, institution. They moved locked cell. 13 August 2000, showing institution currently incarcerated"; shown dangerous"; newer and/or changing "ameliorat[e]" "serious effects"; far outweigh risks"; "there that" "retur[n]" competency." 333-334. manner possible, medications dangerous 335. authorizing id., 331, stayed matter 337. 14 record 2001, opinion. addressed "that presents sufficient" warrant 349. noting "been returned open ward," "dangerousness" "clearly erroneous." 349, n. 5. "dangerousness around context." 349 (emphasis original). 15 Nonetheless, affirmed permitting wrote "anti-psychotic appropriate," "they represent trial," "administration appears government's compelling innocence numerous charges" (including murder). 354. "premature" prejudice [Sell's] defense 351, 352. appealed. 16 Fifth, 2002, divided panel 560 (CA8). majority according "amounted `inappropriate familiarity infatuation' nurse." 565. agreed, "[u]pon review," does support posed Center." 17 requiring "government 568. "correctly no means." conflicting views experts, 568-571, drug "medically appropriate" 571. "medical 572. One member dissented ground laundering "not enough defendant." 574 (opinion Bye, J.). granted certiorari "erred rejecting" argument "allowing non-violent offenses," Brief i, violated Constitution—in improperly depriving "liberty" guarantees, Amdt. II 19 examine decide appealed, order. judgment entered pursuant earlier delegation authority 340; see 28 636(b)(1)(A). embodied conclusions related efforts medicate Sell; grew provisional commitment; commitment seeking Cf. 127 (1992) (reviewing, proceeding, court's denial discontinue medication); Stack Boyle, 342 1, 6-7 (1951) (district reduce proceeding reviewable separate habeas action). 20 How possible order? normally requires wait until end obtain appellate jurisdictional statute, 1291, appeals "final decisions district courts." (Emphasis added.) term decision" refers guilt, terminates proceeding. 21 rule. preliminary interim "conclusively determine[s] question," "resolve[s] completely merits action," (3) "effectively judgment." 468 (1978). appear fall exception. 22 namely, issue," for, make clear, Winston Lee, 470 753, 759 (1985) ("A compelled surgical intrusion individual's body implicates expectations privacy security" great magnitude); Riggins, supra, 133-134; Cruzan Director, Mo. Dept. Health, 497 261, 278-279 (1990); 221-222 (1990). At basic issue—whether undergo will—is "completely guilty innocent crimes charged. Lybrand, S., wholly concerning procedures. By avoid. undo acquitted. Indeed, acquitted, review. Stack, (permitting setting high order"). These considerations, particularly severity corresponding readily distinguish case examples raised dissent. 191-192 23 add here, perhaps unfair, differs unfair. focuses What happen relevant, prediction. infra, 181. asks what administered An ordinary comes too late enforce right; vindication second. 24 appealed order." consequently presented, violates rights. III 25 turn now presented: Does unconstitutionally deprive reject treatment? Const., (Federal "depriv[e]" "liberty due process law"). precedents, (1992), set forth determining answer. 26 recognized "significant" constitutionally protected interest" "avoiding unwanted drugs." 221. inmates gravely disabled significant themselves others." 226. established "by finding" inmate, disorder treated." 222. psychiatrist," approved "ordered" prisoner's interests, legitimate needs confinement." 27 State's "legitima[te]" "importan[t]," 225; Due Process Clause inmate illness inmate's interest," 227. amounted "accommodation between liberty avoiding providing appropriate suffering 236. repeated "interest drugs"—an "essential" "overriding" overcome. 134, 135. principle, permissible. citing "would satisfied prosecution demonstrated sake Riggins' 135 added). said "[s]imilarly ... justify establishing innocence" charge using permitted consequent possibility prejudice, reversed conviction remanded 137-138. concurring emphasized 145 (finding where shows affect "behavior demeanor"). 29 cases, Harper indicate facing 30 rare. 31 offense property. protect application human security. 135-136 ("`[P]ower bring fundamental scheme "ordered liberty" prerequisite social justice peace'" (quoting Illinois Allen, 397 337, 347 (1970) (Brennan, concurring))). 32 however, Special interest. voluntarily, ill—and ordinarily attach suggest substitute difficult impossible try regains years during memories fade lost. affects, totally undermine, strength true already amount ultimately imposed, 3585(b)). concomitant, one. 33 defense, thereby 142-145 (Kennedy, judgment). 34 American Psychological Association Amicus Curiae 10-14 (nondrug therapies effective restoring defendants competence); cf. Psychiatric et al. Amici 13-22 (alternative psychosis commonly medication). means backed contempt power, before methods. 35 said, patient's best light condition. specific kinds elsewhere. Different produce different enjoy levels success. 36 emphasize particular interest, purpose, warranted puts health risk. 225-226. can turning question. 37 permissible, say, "objective manageable" 140 (KENNEDY, easier provide informed whether, effects, control potentially (or patient himself) balance harms quintessentially 38 another matter, Harper-type grounds. Every provides avenues doctor seek guardian power medication—when lacks decision. E. Ala. Code §§ 26-2A-102(a), 26-2A-105, 26-2A-108 (West 1992); Stat. 13.26.105(a), 13.26.116(b) (2002); Ariz. Rev. Ann. 14-5303, 14-5312 1995); Ark. 28-65-205, 28-65-301 (1987). courts, proceedings, authorize accept threatens injury others. See, CFR 549.43 4246. 39 Even least, they facilitate direct as: Why forcibly mind Can alone whole least part) adverse including some extent impair trial? believe court, approve seeks, sought, grounds; not, why not. 40 When nonetheless reach question, factors above, 180-181, ultimate required Has Government, efficacy, appropriateness course sufficiently overcome refusing it? 221-223; 134-135. IV 41 roughly comparable substantially, primarily, approach. erroneous" conclusion regarding agreed. Both 42 assume Appeals' correct. assumption contest, parties argued, anything, us, described Part I, suggests contrary. 43 apparently agreed inappropriate behavior. .. 3d, being so, Appeals, discuss (described testifying Magistrate) "over-familiarity" engaged persistently behavioral Nor explain minimized fact psychiatrists while denied, efficacy proposed treatment. 44 thorough, places weight decision, taken population. reflected improvement saw permanent rather temporary. 227, (indicating physical restraints seclusion acceptable substitutes 45 Regardless, wrong makes Rather, 335 46 Consequently pose questions—questions, risks—the answers helped conceded their cost analysis." 185 (testimony DeMier); 236 Wolfson). making "cost-benefit" judgments, 47 mattered. Whether tend sedate defendant, communication counsel, prevent rapid reaction developments, express emotions matters permissibility restore competence, judgment), 48 period receives served, 3585(b), moderate—though eliminate—the 180. V 49 reasons, orders stand. poses Since basis circumstances. 50 vacated, consistent 51 ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici curiae urging reversal Civil Liberties Union Eastern Missouri Peter Joy; Cognitive Liberty Ethics Richard Glen Boire; Drug Policy Alliance David Goldberg Daniel Abrahamson; National Criminal Defense Lawyers Burton H. Shostak; New York Joshua L. Dratel; Rutherford Institute John W. Whitehead Steven Aden. amici Ogden, Paul R. Q. Wolfson, Nathalie P. Gilfoyle; G. Taranto. 52 whom THOMAS join, dissenting. 53 never led wonder business entertaining petitioner's Instead, much acknowledging Congress court-of-appeals "appeals all States," 1291 added), specified interlocutory orders, 1292, proceeded (CA8 2002). Perhaps attributable States' contest (as 10, 5), panel's unexpressed agreement reached Courts forced-medication under doctrine," see, Morgan, 193 252, 258-259 (CA4 1999); Brandon, 158 947, 950-951 (CA6 1998). 4, order, neither nor class 1292. therefore lack jurisdiction, remand instructions dismiss. 54 indictment, unable understand nature consequences As 4241(d), custody General, foreseeable 9, determined, hearing,1 Petitioner's decision2 denied written statement reasons. 55 possessed responded, appealing determination, 702, moving overseeing requested petitioner, entered.3 Judge's Circuit. maintain "all States" allowed rule," Flanagan States, 465 259, 263 (1984), "[i]n case... prohibits imposition sentence," ibid. Abney 431 651, 656-657 (1977). invented4 narrow exception statutory command: so-called doctrine, "resolve fails satisfy third requirement test. 57 Our demonstrates sentence. detainee, conviction, Nevada contravened substantive-due-process 210 Rather holding claim comply creates unacceptable error entitles automatic vacatur conviction. 135-138. "[a]n enforce" right, ante, 177, challenge imposed.5 58 appeal, type remedy prefer—a predeprivation injunction postdeprivation provided Riggins. emphatically rejected our cases. Flanagan, supra (disallowing disqualifying counsel); Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 (1982) (per curiam) denying dismiss prosecutorial vindictiveness); Carroll 354 394 (1957) evidence). 59 today interpreted collateral-order "`with utmost strictness'" Midland Asphalt Corp. 489 794, 799 (1989) invented exception, Cohen Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 541 (1949), three types prejudgment appealable: denials motions (1951), double-jeopardy Abney, Speech Debate Clause, Helstoski Meanor, 442 500 (1979). becomes moot (and thus unreviewable) 266. demonstrates, here. interrupt precise asserted tried. 660-661; Helstoski, 507-508. assert tried, medicated. 60 Today's position engage opportunistic can, voluntarily halfway abruptly refuse demand continue compulsory basis. concern disruption proceedings—strangely missing discussion today—is us many times interpret narrowly 799; 264. 61 today's compared underlies holding. announces come "Sell avoid." Ante, 176-177. analysis breathtaking expansion orders. applied faithfully panels eager apply faithfully), asserts implemented, immediate violation statutory?) rights immediately empowered hold claiming late" violation. trial-court wear electronic bracelet attacked infringement "bodily integrity"; T-shirt "Black Power" front First Amendment rights; testimony Fifth All Carroll, infringe still seemingly overruled. gate entry doctrine—hitherto traversable tried—has generously widened. 62 dismisses single following assertion meets Cohen-exception requirements (correct); resolving action (quite plainly incorrect). reads follows: "These dissent." 177. brand consideration put forward rebuttal, analysis, relies (contrary my contention) last-minute revising test, dispense (unreviewable appeal) involves "severe intrusion" hence "important issue." Of welcome narrowing misguided revision—but favor revision, novelty opinions, uncertainty, obvious opportunity gamesmanship, revision-as-narrowed produces. If, textually unsupported undisguised fashion. 63 64 obtained pre-trial filing suit Administrative Procedure Act, 551 seq., Bivens Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 388 (1971), action, available detainees challenging confinement, Lyons Marshals, 840 2d 202 (CA3 1987). suit, relief.6 chooses context abide limitations attached challenge—which stopping tracks. mistaken litigation strategy, desire interesting disregard limits imposed appeals' own) jurisdiction. Title 549.43(2002) procedures Before done, "necessary attempt self disabled, function population referral center regular prison," 549.43(a)(5) Section 549.43(a)(6) provides: "The submit division administrator hours appeal." apparent necessary, hadalready received 549.43. reverse order) Prisons' forcible remain place. Which defect interlocutoriness addressed, because, filed, failed meet "remediability" Article standing. Steel Co. Citizens Better Environment, 523 83 (1998). remand. "invented" advisedly. text To sure, judgmentif "unreviewability" leg doctrine—which, framed, judgment," (1978) added)—is aggrieved party occasion points disadvantages approach—for entitlement appointed aBivens action. entitle

Category: 3