Sell v. United States
Encyclopedia
Sell v. United States, is a landmark decision
in which the United States Supreme Court
imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration
of antipsychotic medication
to a criminal defendant
who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial
for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried. Specifically, the court held that lower courts could do so only under limited circumstances in which specified criteria had been met. In the case of Charles Sell, since the lower court had failed to determine that all the appropriate criteria for court-ordered forcible treatment had been met, the order to forcibly medicate the defendant was reversed.
Previously, in Washington v. Harper
494 U.S. 210
(1990), the Supreme Court made clear that the forced medication of inmate
s with mental disorders
could be ordered only when the inmate was a danger to themselves or others and when the medication is in the inmate's own best interests. In addition, courts must first consider "alternative, less intrusive means" before resorting to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication.
Using the framework set forth in Riggins v. Nevada
504 U.S. 127
(1992), the Court emphasized that an individual has a constitutionally protected "interest in avoiding involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs" and this interest is one that only an "essential" or "overriding" state interest might overcome.
dentist who had a long history of a delusional disorder
but no prior history of criminal behavior, was charged with fifty-six counts of mail fraud, six counts of medicaid fraud, and one count of money-laundering.
That year a federal judge
found Sell competent to stand trial
and released him on bail
. However, Sell's mental status deteriorated while he was on bail, and his bail was revoked in 1998. Also in 1998, on the basis of a videotape provided by an undercover agent, Sell was charged with one count of conspiring to commit the attempted murder
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
officer arresting him. The agent later interviewed Sell in jail, and by questioning got him to say something about hiring a hit man. In early 1999 Sell requested a competency hearing before standing trial for the fraud and attempted murder charges.
Sell was given a competency evaluation
by the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (Medical Center), and in 1999 was found incompetent to stand trial. Sell was ordered to be hospitalized to determine whether he would be able to become competent so as to allow his trial to proceed. While in the hospital, Sell refused to take the antipsychotic medication prescribed by the Medical Center staff. The Medical Center sought to involuntarily medicate Sell. On June 9, 1999, an administrative hearing was held before a medical hearing officer who concluded that antipsychotic medication was the treatment of choice based on the fact that Dr. Sell's "delusional thinking could make him dangerous." Sell filed a court challenge to stop the hospital's decision to give him the drug involuntarily.
The question of whether the drug could be administered involuntarily was the subject of several other hearings. In August 2000 the magistrate found that Sell was a danger to himself and others, authorized Sell to be forcibly medicated on the grounds that only medication would reduce his dangerousness, that any serious side effects could be treated, that the benefits to Sell were greater than the risks, and that the medication were substantially likely to restore Sell's competence.
In 2001, Sell appealed on certiorari
to the Federal District Court
which, while reversing the federal magistrate's finding of dangerousness, upheld the order of forced medication on the grounds that it was necessary to restore Sell's competency to stand trial. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
affirmed the lower court's decision in a divided vote. Sell's attorney pointed out that Sell had already been incarcerated for a longer period of time than if he were convicted for the offenses as charged.
Sell, on Writ of Certiorari, appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The American Psychological Association
filed an amicus curiae
brief taking a neutral position, supporting neither the government's nor Sell's position.
permits the federal government to forcibly administer antipsychotic medication to a mentally ill, but not dangerous, criminal defendant for the sole purpose of rendering him competent to stand trial for serious but nonviolent crimes, thereby violating his cognitive liberty
. Civil liberties organizations contend Dr. Sell's right to physical and mental integrity is guaranteed under the First
, Fifth
and Sixth Amendment
s to the U.S. Constitution.
In a divided opinion (6-3), the Court held that the Constitution allows the Federal Government to administer antipsychotic drugs, even against the defendant's will, in limited circumstances as decided previously in Washington v. Harper
and Riggins v. Nevada
. It affirmed that involuntary administration for the purposes of restoring a defendants competency to stand trial can be an appropriate means of acting in the state's interest to bring to trial defendants who are charged with serious crimes, overriding the defendant's right to refuse forced medication. However, the court outlined specific criteria which must be satisfied to justify involuntary medication. This framework was outlined in Riggins v. Nevada.
The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in approving the lower court's order to allow forced medication to restore Sell's competence to stand trial because the original decisions of the hospital and the judge were based on an assessment of Sell's dangerousness. Since the experts testifying at the hearings focused mainly on the issue of dangerousness and not on Sell's trial competence, there was not enough evidence in the court record regarding the possible effect of the medication on Sell's ability to obtain a fair trial.
In examining the lower courts' findings, the Court found no evidence that Sell was dangerous, so the Court assumed that he was not. Determining that the findings of the District Court and Court of Appeals did not satisfy the criteria for involuntary medication, the Court vacated the appellate court's judgment.
. Therefore, in each case the facts and circumstances must be considered individually, balancing the government's responsibility to ensure timely prosecution with an equal interest in making sure a defendant obtains a fair trial. The court must weight these factors and decide if forced medication will significantly further or hinder these conflicting interests of the state.
However, others disagreed, arguing that the strict limits imposed by the Supreme Court on involuntary medication meant that the involuntary medication of a non dangerous defendant would be rare, especially since government's "important" interest in bringing the defendant to trial must be unattainable by alternative, less invasive means.
At the very least however, the criteria set forth by the court will ensure that the lower courts considering the issue of forced medication must determine why it is medically appropriate to force drug an individual who is not dangerous and furthermore is competent to make up his own mind about treatment.
On April 18, 2005, Sell pleaded no contest
to federal charges of fraud
and conspiracy
to kill a federal agent, after serving eight years without trial in federal prison. The U.S. District Judge sentenced him to time served
, six months in a halfway house
and three years on parole
.
Landmark decision
Landmark court decisions establish new precedents that establish a significant new legal principle or concept, or otherwise substantially change the interpretation of existing law...
in which the United States Supreme Court
Supreme Court of the United States
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all state and federal courts, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases...
imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration
Involuntary treatment
Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without a person's consent. In almost all circumstances, involuntary treatment refers to psychiatric treatment administered despite an individual's objections...
of antipsychotic medication
Antipsychotic
An antipsychotic is a tranquilizing psychiatric medication primarily used to manage psychosis , particularly in schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. A first generation of antipsychotics, known as typical antipsychotics, was discovered in the 1950s...
to a criminal defendant
Defendant
A defendant or defender is any party who is required to answer the complaint of a plaintiff or pursuer in a civil lawsuit before a court, or any party who has been formally charged or accused of violating a criminal statute...
who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial
Competence (law)
In American law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify...
for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried. Specifically, the court held that lower courts could do so only under limited circumstances in which specified criteria had been met. In the case of Charles Sell, since the lower court had failed to determine that all the appropriate criteria for court-ordered forcible treatment had been met, the order to forcibly medicate the defendant was reversed.
Previously, in Washington v. Harper
Washington v. Harper
Washington v. Harper 494 U.S. 210 is a case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.-Circumstances:...
494 U.S. 210
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1990), the Supreme Court made clear that the forced medication of inmate
Incarceration
Incarceration is the detention of a person in prison, typically as punishment for a crime .People are most commonly incarcerated upon suspicion or conviction of committing a crime, and different jurisdictions have differing laws governing the function of incarceration within a larger system of...
s with mental disorders
Mental illness
A mental disorder or mental illness is a psychological or behavioral pattern generally associated with subjective distress or disability that occurs in an individual, and which is not a part of normal development or culture. Such a disorder may consist of a combination of affective, behavioural,...
could be ordered only when the inmate was a danger to themselves or others and when the medication is in the inmate's own best interests. In addition, courts must first consider "alternative, less intrusive means" before resorting to the involuntary administration of psychotropic medication.
Using the framework set forth in Riggins v. Nevada
Riggins v. Nevada
Riggins v. Nevada, is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take antipsychotic medication while they are on trial to allow the state to make sure they remain competent during the trial....
504 U.S. 127
Case citation
Case citation is the system used in many countries to identify the decisions in past court cases, either in special series of books called reporters or law reports, or in a 'neutral' form which will identify a decision wherever it was reported...
(1992), the Court emphasized that an individual has a constitutionally protected "interest in avoiding involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs" and this interest is one that only an "essential" or "overriding" state interest might overcome.
Facts of the case
In 1997, Charles Thomas Sell, a St. LouisSt. Louis, Missouri
St. Louis is an independent city on the eastern border of Missouri, United States. With a population of 319,294, it was the 58th-largest U.S. city at the 2010 U.S. Census. The Greater St...
dentist who had a long history of a delusional disorder
Delusional disorder
Delusional disorder is an uncommon psychiatric condition in which patients present with circumscribed symptoms of non-bizarre delusions, but with the absence of prominent hallucinations and no thought disorder, mood disorder, or significant flattening of affect...
but no prior history of criminal behavior, was charged with fifty-six counts of mail fraud, six counts of medicaid fraud, and one count of money-laundering.
That year a federal judge
United States federal judge
In the United States, the title of federal judge usually means a judge appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the United States Senate in accordance with Article II of the United States Constitution....
found Sell competent to stand trial
Competence (law)
In American law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings. Defendants that do not possess sufficient "competence" are usually excluded from criminal prosecution, while witnesses found not to possess requisite competence cannot testify...
and released him on bail
Bail
Traditionally, bail is some form of property deposited or pledged to a court to persuade it to release a suspect from jail, on the understanding that the suspect will return for trial or forfeit the bail...
. However, Sell's mental status deteriorated while he was on bail, and his bail was revoked in 1998. Also in 1998, on the basis of a videotape provided by an undercover agent, Sell was charged with one count of conspiring to commit the attempted murder
Attempted murder
Attempted murder is a crime in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.-Today:In English criminal law, attempted murder is the crime of more than merely preparing to commit unlawful killing and at the same time having a specific intention to cause the death of human being under the Queen's Peace...
of the Federal Bureau of Investigation
Federal Bureau of Investigation
The Federal Bureau of Investigation is an agency of the United States Department of Justice that serves as both a federal criminal investigative body and an internal intelligence agency . The FBI has investigative jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crime...
officer arresting him. The agent later interviewed Sell in jail, and by questioning got him to say something about hiring a hit man. In early 1999 Sell requested a competency hearing before standing trial for the fraud and attempted murder charges.
Sell was given a competency evaluation
Competency evaluation (law)
In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process....
by the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners (Medical Center), and in 1999 was found incompetent to stand trial. Sell was ordered to be hospitalized to determine whether he would be able to become competent so as to allow his trial to proceed. While in the hospital, Sell refused to take the antipsychotic medication prescribed by the Medical Center staff. The Medical Center sought to involuntarily medicate Sell. On June 9, 1999, an administrative hearing was held before a medical hearing officer who concluded that antipsychotic medication was the treatment of choice based on the fact that Dr. Sell's "delusional thinking could make him dangerous." Sell filed a court challenge to stop the hospital's decision to give him the drug involuntarily.
The question of whether the drug could be administered involuntarily was the subject of several other hearings. In August 2000 the magistrate found that Sell was a danger to himself and others, authorized Sell to be forcibly medicated on the grounds that only medication would reduce his dangerousness, that any serious side effects could be treated, that the benefits to Sell were greater than the risks, and that the medication were substantially likely to restore Sell's competence.
In 2001, Sell appealed on certiorari
Certiorari
Certiorari is a type of writ seeking judicial review, recognized in U.S., Roman, English, Philippine, and other law. Certiorari is the present passive infinitive of the Latin certiorare...
to the Federal District Court
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri is a trial level federal district court based in St. Louis, Missouri, with jurisdiction over fifty counties in the eastern half of Missouri. The court is one of ninety-four district-level courts which make up the first tier of...
which, while reversing the federal magistrate's finding of dangerousness, upheld the order of forced medication on the grounds that it was necessary to restore Sell's competency to stand trial. The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is a federal court with appellate jurisdiction over the district courts in the following districts:* Eastern District of Arkansas* Western District of Arkansas...
affirmed the lower court's decision in a divided vote. Sell's attorney pointed out that Sell had already been incarcerated for a longer period of time than if he were convicted for the offenses as charged.
Sell, on Writ of Certiorari, appealed to the United States Supreme Court. The American Psychological Association
American Psychological Association
The American Psychological Association is the largest scientific and professional organization of psychologists in the United States. It is the world's largest association of psychologists with around 154,000 members including scientists, educators, clinicians, consultants and students. The APA...
filed an amicus curiae
Amicus curiae
An amicus curiae is someone, not a party to a case, who volunteers to offer information to assist a court in deciding a matter before it...
brief taking a neutral position, supporting neither the government's nor Sell's position.
Issue
The question before the Supreme Court was whether the U.S. ConstitutionUnited States Constitution
The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the United States of America. It is the framework for the organization of the United States government and for the relationship of the federal government with the states, citizens, and all people within the United States.The first three...
permits the federal government to forcibly administer antipsychotic medication to a mentally ill, but not dangerous, criminal defendant for the sole purpose of rendering him competent to stand trial for serious but nonviolent crimes, thereby violating his cognitive liberty
Cognitive liberty
Cognitive liberty is the freedom of sovereign control over one's own consciousness. It is an extension of the concepts of freedom of thought and self-ownership....
. Civil liberties organizations contend Dr. Sell's right to physical and mental integrity is guaranteed under the First
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering...
, Fifth
Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, protects against abuse of government authority in a legal procedure. Its guarantees stem from English common law which traces back to the Magna Carta in 1215...
and Sixth Amendment
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights which sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions...
s to the U.S. Constitution.
Decision
Although the Supreme Court upheld two aspects of the appeal, it ultimately vacated and remanded on the question of the petitioner's dangerousness.- Held
In a divided opinion (6-3), the Court held that the Constitution allows the Federal Government to administer antipsychotic drugs, even against the defendant's will, in limited circumstances as decided previously in Washington v. Harper
Washington v. Harper
Washington v. Harper 494 U.S. 210 is a case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.-Circumstances:...
and Riggins v. Nevada
Riggins v. Nevada
Riggins v. Nevada, is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take antipsychotic medication while they are on trial to allow the state to make sure they remain competent during the trial....
. It affirmed that involuntary administration for the purposes of restoring a defendants competency to stand trial can be an appropriate means of acting in the state's interest to bring to trial defendants who are charged with serious crimes, overriding the defendant's right to refuse forced medication. However, the court outlined specific criteria which must be satisfied to justify involuntary medication. This framework was outlined in Riggins v. Nevada.
- An important government issue must be at stake and only a case by case inquiry can determine whether the government's interest is mitigated by the possibility of a long civil commitment for the treatment of the mental illness or by the fact that long periods of confinement have already been served, as this would be subtracted from any criminal sentence.
- There must be a substantial probability that the medication will enable the defendant to become competent without substantial undermining side effects.
- The medication must be necessary to restore the defendant's competency, with no alternative, less intrusive procedures available that would produce the same results.
- Held
The Supreme Court held that the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals erred in approving the lower court's order to allow forced medication to restore Sell's competence to stand trial because the original decisions of the hospital and the judge were based on an assessment of Sell's dangerousness. Since the experts testifying at the hearings focused mainly on the issue of dangerousness and not on Sell's trial competence, there was not enough evidence in the court record regarding the possible effect of the medication on Sell's ability to obtain a fair trial.
- Vacated and remanded
In examining the lower courts' findings, the Court found no evidence that Sell was dangerous, so the Court assumed that he was not. Determining that the findings of the District Court and Court of Appeals did not satisfy the criteria for involuntary medication, the Court vacated the appellate court's judgment.
Summary
The Court in its decision wrote that the standards it outlined will allow involuntary medication for the sole purpose of rendering the defendant competent to stand trial only in rare instances. The standard implies that a court must find that important governmental interests are at stake and that its interest in bringing the accused to trial for serious crimes is important enough to override constitutional issues, and that the forced medication will not significantly interfere with the defense or have untoward side effectsAdverse effect (medicine)
In medicine, an adverse effect is a harmful and undesired effect resulting from a medication or other intervention such as surgery.An adverse effect may be termed a "side effect", when judged to be secondary to a main or therapeutic effect. If it results from an unsuitable or incorrect dosage or...
. Therefore, in each case the facts and circumstances must be considered individually, balancing the government's responsibility to ensure timely prosecution with an equal interest in making sure a defendant obtains a fair trial. The court must weight these factors and decide if forced medication will significantly further or hinder these conflicting interests of the state.
Significance
It is unknown in how many cases involuntary administration will now be justified, and any procedure outlined by the Court will require the government to submit proof on all the criteria outlined by the court. Beyond the federal situation, any constitutional ruling will apply to all criminal proceedings, state as well as federal. However, although this decision possibly affects only a small percentage of trials, it seems to add weight to a growing acceptance of the belief that government can override the constitutional rights of self determination on medical matters. The case potentially could have addressed a more serious question of whether governmental manipulation of an individual's mental state through psychotropic drug administration is based on false assumptions of what makes up a person's individuality. The court chose to sidestep this issue.However, others disagreed, arguing that the strict limits imposed by the Supreme Court on involuntary medication meant that the involuntary medication of a non dangerous defendant would be rare, especially since government's "important" interest in bringing the defendant to trial must be unattainable by alternative, less invasive means.
At the very least however, the criteria set forth by the court will ensure that the lower courts considering the issue of forced medication must determine why it is medically appropriate to force drug an individual who is not dangerous and furthermore is competent to make up his own mind about treatment.
Subsequent developments
In 2004, Sell was found competent to stand trial and trial was scheduled. A week before the trial was to begin, the prosecution and defense claimed that he was mentally unfit for trial and the trial was continued.On April 18, 2005, Sell pleaded no contest
Nolo contendere
is a legal term that comes from the Latin for "I do not wish to contend." It is also referred to as a plea of no contest.In criminal trials, and in some common law jurisdictions, it is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of...
to federal charges of fraud
Fraud
In criminal law, a fraud is an intentional deception made for personal gain or to damage another individual; the related adjective is fraudulent. The specific legal definition varies by legal jurisdiction. Fraud is a crime, and also a civil law violation...
and conspiracy
Conspiracy (crime)
In the criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future, and, in some cases, with at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement...
to kill a federal agent, after serving eight years without trial in federal prison. The U.S. District Judge sentenced him to time served
Time served
In criminal law, "time served" describes a sentence where the defendant is credited immediately after the guilty verdict with the time spent in remand awaiting trial. The time is usually subtracted from the sentence, with only the balance being served after the verdict...
, six months in a halfway house
Halfway house
The purpose of a halfway house, also called a recovery house or sober house, is generally to allow people to begin the process of reintegration with society, while still providing monitoring and support; this is generally believed to reduce the risk of recidivism or relapse when compared to a...
and three years on parole
Parole
Parole may have different meanings depending on the field and judiciary system. All of the meanings originated from the French parole . Following its use in late-resurrected Anglo-French chivalric practice, the term became associated with the release of prisoners based on prisoners giving their...
.
See also
- List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 539
- List of United States Supreme Court cases
- Washington v. HarperWashington v. HarperWashington v. Harper 494 U.S. 210 is a case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.-Circumstances:...
- Riggins v. NevadaRiggins v. NevadaRiggins v. Nevada, is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take antipsychotic medication while they are on trial to allow the state to make sure they remain competent during the trial....
- Rennie v. KleinRennie v. KleinRennie v. Klein was a case heard in the Federal District Court of New Jersey in 1978 to decide whether an involuntarily committed mental patient has a constitutional right to refuse psychiatric medication...
External links
- Court's Decision in Sell v. United States Reflects Psychology's Recommendation that Alternatives to Drug Therapy Should be Considered
- Amicus brief filed in behave of Dr. Sell by Association of American Physicians and Surgeons
- Brief Amicus Curias of the Center of Cognitive Liberty & Ethics in Support of the Petition
- A win for Sell, but not a complete victory
- State Can Make Inmate Sane Enough to Execute