United States v. Berry
276 F. Supp. 3d 740
| E.D. Mich. | 2017Background
- Defendant Duane Berry charged under 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a) for planting a fake bomb; found incompetent to stand trial due to a delusional disorder.
- BOP clinicians at FMC Butner (Drs. Lloyd and Graddy) evaluated Berry, diagnosed Delusional Disorder, and concluded competency is not restored and unlikely to remit without medication.
- Berry refused psychiatric evaluation, psychological testing, and offers to discuss medication; he has a history of legal preoccupation tied to his delusions.
- Government moved for a court order to involuntarily medicate Berry to restore competency; a Sell hearing and expert testimony were held.
- Court applied Sell’s four-factor test and found, by clear and convincing evidence, that forced medication is warranted under a limited, individualized protocol.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument (Berry) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does the government have an important interest in prosecuting? | Continued prosecution of serious offense justifies interest. | Government's interest not sufficiently important. | Court: Government interest is important; prior finding upheld. |
| 2. Will involuntary medication significantly further that interest? | Medication substantially likely to restore competency; side effects unlikely to impair trial ability. | Studies small; efficacy uncertain for delusional disorder. | Court: Evidence shows substantial likelihood of restoration and acceptable side-effect risk. |
| 3. Is involuntary medication necessary (no less intrusive alternatives)? | No effective alternatives; psychotherapy unlikely to work; contempt/other sanctions unlikely to help. | No prior treatment history; medication not the only option. | Court: Medication necessary; less intrusive options unlikely to achieve same result. |
| 4. Is the proposed medication medically appropriate? | Individualized plan (Haldol, Risperidone, Zyprexa), start low dose, monitor, allow voluntary acceptance first. | BOP guidelines not specific; risks significant. | Court: Plan is medically appropriate and tailored; approves limited protocol and monitoring. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (establishes four-factor test for involuntary medication to restore competency)
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (recognizes liberty interest against unwanted antipsychotic drugs)
- United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. application of Sell factors)
- United States v. Mikulich, 732 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. discussion of Sell standards)
- United States v. Chatmon, 718 F.3d 369 (4th Cir. caution about forced-medication orders and consideration of less-intrusive alternatives)
- United States v. Gomes, 387 F.3d 157 (2d Cir. view that ~70% restoration chance can suffice)
- United States v. Ghane, 392 F.3d 317 (8th Cir. view that low restoration probability insufficient)
- United States v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. vacating blanket involuntary medication order)
- United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez, 513 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. criteria for permissible scope of Sell orders)
- United States v. Chavez, 734 F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. requiring individualized treatment plan in Sell orders)