In a back and forth court battle, it now stands that Jared Lee Loughner, can’t be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs until the government shows that the drugs are absolutely necessary and likely to render him competent to stand trial, a federal appeals court has ruled. The court has now asked lawyers for both the defendant and the federal government to make their case by Wednesday evening.
In an order made public Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals issued a temporary halt to the involuntary medication of Loughner, who has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and declared mentally incompetent to stand trial. The appeals court panel, headed by Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, issued the temporary stay at the request of Loughner’s defense lawyers, who argued that the government isn’t entitled to overrule a prisoner’s objection to medication without a court hearing.
Jared Lee Loughner shot six people and wounded 13 others earlier this year including Representative Gabrielle Giffords, wife of one of the last U.S. astronauts in space shuttle travel, is scheduled to appear in court today for an emergency hearing to determine whether prison officials should stop forcing him to take anti-psychotic medication. The emergency hearing comes after the release of a new court filing that offered insight into Loughner’s disturbing behavior and raised more questions about whether he could ever be considered psychologically fit enough to stand trial.
Here are some cases that lawyers for both sides may be examining. In the 1990 case of Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, the Court was confronted with a mentally ill incarcerated man who did not want to be medicated by prison psychiatrists. The state made a showing that forced administration of the antipsychotic drug at issue was medically appropriate and that, absent the medication, Harper represented a danger to himself and others. The Court clearly recognized Harper’s liberty interest in avoiding the forced administration of antipsychotic medication, as well as the “substantial interference” posed by forcible medication and the tremendous dangers associated with such drugs. It nonetheless held that Harper could be involuntarily medicated given the state’s demonstration that the drug regimen was necessary.
Further, the Court rejected Harper’s claim that the decision to forcibly medicate necessarily had to be made by a judicial decision maker. Instead, the Court reasoned that Harper’s interests might well be better served when the decision to medicate was made by a medical professional rather than a judge.
Two years later, in Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 792, the Court was faced with the issue of involuntarily medicating a mentally ill prisoner. However, in Riggins, the defendant had not been convicted at the time he was involuntarily medicated; rather, the trial court refused to allow Riggins to discontinue his medication despite his arguments that its continuation would affect both his demeanor at trial and his ability to meaningfully assist in his own defense.
As in Harper, the Court again recognized the serious and sometimes fatal side effects associated with the administration of antipsychotic medications. However, the Court held that he could not be involuntarily medicated absent any showing by the state that less intrusive means were available to restore his competency and that he was a danger to himself or others-which had not ever been made.
This week’s Loughner filing also said that he Loughner used profanities and threw a plastic chair at a psychiatrist multiple times during a taped interview on March 28. He also hurled a wet toilet paper roll at a camera that was in the room.
State lawyers are using these incidents to argue in the court filings that Loughner should be given anti-psychotic medication. They claim he is a danger to others. Loughner’s lawyers however argue that he should not be forced to take medications without court approval.
They stated:
“The prison’s sole prerogative is to neutralize any danger. Yet here, the prison engaged instead in the error prone, multifaceted decision to treat mental illness and did so in a truncated, nonadversarial setting when it decided to forcibly medicate Mr. Loughner on the ostensible grounds of addressing dangerousness.”
Loughner has been held at a prison medical facility in Springfield, Mo., where psychiatrists are trying to restore his mental health so that he can participate in court proceedings. He arrived at the facility on May 28 and could spend up to four months there.
If it is ever ruled that Loughner is sufficiently psychologically fit to participate in the trial and understand the charges against him, court proceedings would resume. Otherwise, Loughner’s stay at the medical facility with the mental health experts could be extended.
Sources: The American Bar Association
Written by Sy Kraft