Federal court OKs forced drugging: Defendant ordered to take anti-psychotic medication

A federal appeals court has ruled 2-1 that a dentist charged with Medicaid fraud can be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs to render him competent to stand trial.

The U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled March 7 that a pair of lower courts were correct in determining that Charles T. Sell, a St. Louis-area dentist, was not competent to stand trial and, therefore, should be forced to take anti-psychotic drugs to "restore" competency.

"The government may not constitutionally bring an incompetent defendant to trial, so the only way the government may try Sell is by restoring his competency," the court said.

Sell and his wife were arrested May 16, 1997, on 56 counts of mail fraud, six counts of Medicaid fraud and one count of money laundering. Since then, Sell has also been charged with conspiring to kill an FBI agent and a former employee who is a witness against him.

He was released on bond a few months later, in August, but in January federal officials filed to revoke his bond, charging that he violated the conditions of his release.

Then, when he was brought before a U.S. district judge, he "screamed, shouted and used racial epithets" in court. The judge tried to proceed but when she did, "Sell leaned towards her and spit directly in her face," the court said.

Nevertheless, a doctor's group that filed an amicus brief on Sell's behalf called the court's decision "shocking" and "inhumane."

"All the government needs are allegations and a cooperative psychiatrist to forcibly drug any citizen," said Andrew Schlafly, general counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. "It's a shocking, inhumane decision."

While acknowledging that "the evidence does not support a finding that Sell posed a danger to himself or others," the majority opinion still found that "charges of fraud" alone are "serious" enough to justify forced medication, AAPS said.

A similar case is pending before the same court to allow the state to forcibly medicate a convicted murderer for execution.

"It's appalling that the court will drug a man presumed to be innocent, even if it's illegal to do the same thing to a convicted killer," Schlafly said. "It's unprecedented to allow prosecutors to drug peaceful defendants presumed to be innocent."

At the January 1998 hearing, however, the court said it had "received evidence" that Sell's "mental condition was deteriorating." One psychiatrist told the court that Sell "soon could become a danger to himself and others."

More than a year later, at a Feb. 9, 1999, hearing, both Sell's psychologist and a psychologist for the government "diagnosed Sell with delusional disorder. …"

The majority opinion in this month's decision, led by Judge Pasco M. Bowman, concluded that the court found that "medical evidence presented indicated a reasonable probability that Sell will be fairly able to participate in his trial" if he were involuntarily medicated.

Judge Kermit E. Bye dissented, arguing that "the charges against Sell are not sufficiently serious to forcibly inject him with anti-psychotic drugs on the chance it will make him competent to stand trial."

"While the government possesses an interest in bringing a defendant to trial," Bowman said, "I do not believe every charge is sufficient" to force defendants to take medication.

The AAPS also said it was alarmed by the length of time Sell has been incarcerated without being tried and convicted of any crimes.

"There's no good reason why Dr. Sell has been held so long without trial, and this decision will most likely prolong his imprisonment with no end in sight," Schlafly said. Judge Bye "pointed out that even if Dr. Sell were to be found guilty, his sentence would be no more than 41 months - one year less than he's already served."

The Eighth Circuit covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota.

"The government may not constitutionally bring an incompetent defendant to trial, so the only way the government may try Sell is by restoring his competency,"

I'm not a legal type, but it seems to me that this would be a violation of the 5th amendment. Using durgs to alter a persons mind.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.