The U.S. Supreme Court will hear the arguments next Monday of a St. Louis dentist who was ordered to take medication making him competent to stand trial.
Dr. Charles Sell was charged with Medicaid fraud in 1997 and won a plea of incompetency to stand trial due to mental illness. Since then, the federal government has tried to administer anti-psychotic drugs to Sell to make him fit for trial.
The Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics, a nonprofit civil-rights organization, filed a brief on Sell’s behalf arguing the government’s medication of Sell violated his First Amendment right to freedom of thought.
“It is imperative that the interest all Americans have in autonomy over their own brain chemistry be recognized and protected,” said Richard Boire, a lawyer for the Center.
Boire expects Solicitor General Ted Olsen, who represents the United States in the case, to argue that the government’s interest in bringing the accused to trial outweighs Sell’s First Amendment right.
“The First Amendment can and will be seriously compromised if the government, with the approval of our courts, is allowed to chemically manipulate the thought processes of non-dangerous citizens,” Boire said.
But whether or not this is a freedom of thought issue is a decision that will depend on whether the Court finds that Sell forfeited his freedom of thought by pleading he was mentally ill when he was originally charged.
University of Wisconsin law professor Donald Downs said if a person is incompetent to stand trial because of mental illness, their right to free thought might be negated because they were ruled incompetent and the measure of being incompetent is evidence presented before the court.
“To be incompetent to stand trial is almost like being insane — not quite, but it borders on it,” Downs said. “Whether or not a person was incompetent is a determination made by an expert to the court.”
Various levels of appeals courts have upheld the court’s right to forcibly medicate a person to make them competent to stand trial.
“Courts have said it’s OK for a person to be forcibly medicated to make them competent to stand trial, although the Supreme Court noted it must not render the person incapable of communicating with his legal counsel,” Downs said.
Downs said that an incompetence plea is a “fairly standard thing” but is won by only 10 to 35 percent of the defendants who enter one.
“They’re not taking a competent person and making them incompetent,” Downs said. “I don’t know the case, but I don’t see a First Amendment issue here. It looks like they’re resorting to this because the Court will likely uphold their right to forcibly medicate someone.”
Once a person is found incompetent, they can be detained until they are competent. Sell has been in custody since he was found unfit for trial in 1997.
“Generally, you can hold a guy for a long time,” Downs said. He said there have been cases where a defendant was held in custody indefinitely waiting to stand trial.
