United States v. Berry, 2:15-cr-20743

Berry was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a) for leaving a briefcase made to look like a bomb outside a Bank of America branch in Detroit; device was not an actual bomb.
Berry holds fixed delusional beliefs that he is the “primary trustee” of a trust that owns Bank of America branches and that he must “repossess” them; nearby vandalism of multiple BofA branches was linked to him.
The district court previously found Berry incompetent to stand trial, committed him for restoration under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d), and ordered involuntary medication under Sell; the Sixth Circuit later reversed the involuntary-medication order and Berry never received antipsychotics.
Subsequent competency evaluations continued to diagnose a delusional disorder and the court again found Berry incompetent and ordered further hospitalization for restoration efforts. Berry continued to refuse treatment.
The government moved to dismiss the indictment on grounds Berry cannot be restored to competency without involuntary medication and to refer him for civil commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246(a); the district court granted dismissal and ordered a civil-commitment evaluation and hearing where Berry is confined.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the indictment should be dismissed because Berry is incompetent and unlikely to be restored	Berry remains delusional, refuses treatment, and without involuntary medication restoration is unlikely	Berry refuses treatment and opposes involuntary medication; no viable path to restoration	Court granted government’s motion and dismissed the indictment
Whether Berry should be referred for civil commitment under 18 U.S.C. § 4246 after dismissal	Berry’s untreated delusions and history of vandalism create substantial risk of serious damage to property/persons; commitment evaluation warranted	Berry opposes commitment (and treatment); opposes involuntary confinement	Court ordered referral for civil-commitment evaluation and a hearing in the district of confinement
Whether involuntary medication to restore competency was legally authorized	Government showed interest and obtained district authorization under Sell for involuntary meds	Berry opposed; Sixth Circuit reversed the district court’s authorization	Sixth Circuit reversed the earlier involuntary-medication order; involuntary treatment was not administered

Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (framework for when involuntary medication to restore competency may be ordered)
United States v. Berry, 911 F.3d 354 (6th Cir. 2018) (appellate reversal of district court’s authorization of involuntary medication)
United States v. Berry, 276 F. Supp. 3d 740 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (district court’s initial Sell analysis and authorization of involuntary meds)
Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 375 (1966) (defendant must be competent to stand trial)
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 (1938) (waivers must be competent and intelligent)
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 (1970) (standards for voluntary guilty pleas)
Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389 (1993) (competency standard for pleading guilty or waiving counsel equals standard for trial)