United States v. Duane Berry
911 F.3d 354
| 6th Cir. | 2018Background
- Duane Berry was indicted under 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a)(1)(A) for placing a briefcase made to look like a bomb outside a Bank of America; no explosives or physical injuries resulted.
- Berry was found incompetent to stand trial due to delusional disorder; treatment at FMC Butner without medication failed because he refused antipsychotics.
- The district court held Sell hearings and ordered involuntary antipsychotic medication to restore competency.
- Berry had been in pretrial confinement for roughly three years by the time of appeal; the court-ordered medication period was for several additional months.
- The Sixth Circuit considered whether the government met Sell’s first prong (an important governmental interest) and whether mitigating circumstances reduced that interest enough to bar forced medication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether forced medication satisfies Sell’s first prong (important governmental interest / seriousness of charged crime) | Gov't: §1038(a) (max 5 yrs) is serious here given terrorism fears and public alarm; prosecution serves deterrence and security. | Berry: Five‑year statutory max plus facts here do not create sufficient governmental interest given mitigating circumstances. | Court: Even assuming a 5‑year max can qualify, the government failed to meet Sell prong one by clear and convincing evidence due to mitigating factors; order vacated. |
| Effect of lengthy pretrial confinement on governmental interest | Gov't: Prosecution interest remains despite delays; conviction still vindicates law and may lead to confinement or commitment. | Berry: He has already served time approximating or exceeding his likely sentence; further incarceration deterrence effect is negligible. | Court: Lengthy pretrial confinement (≈36 months) greatly weakens the government’s interest because any eventual sentence likely would be time served. |
| Relevance of dangerousness and likelihood of civil commitment | Gov't: Uncertainty about civil commitment means prosecution interest persists. | Berry: He is not currently dangerous in confinement; civil commitment is likely but not certain—nonetheless reduces need for prosecution-based confinement. | Court: Berry’s lack of current dangerousness and substantial likelihood of civil commitment further mitigate the government’s interest. |
| Timeliness of appeal | Gov't: Government notes appeal was untimely but waived the defense of timeliness. | Berry: Raised appeal of forced-medication order. | Court: Proceeded to merits because government waived untimeliness; addressed Sell analysis de novo. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (framework and four Sell factors for involuntary medication)
- Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990) (prisoner liberty interest in avoiding involuntary antipsychotic drugs)
- Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992) (limitations on forced medication for defendants)
- Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 162 (1975) (defendant may not be tried while mentally incompetent)
- United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2008) (Sell requires clear and convincing proof of all four factors)
- United States v. Mikulich, 732 F.3d 692 (6th Cir. 2013) (use statutory maximum to assess seriousness for Sell)
- United States v. Grigsby, 712 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2013) (consideration of Guidelines and individual realities in weighing government interest)
- United States v. Onuoha, 820 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2016) (upheld Sell prong one for same §1038 offense using Guidelines-based analysis)
- United States v. Payne, 539 F.3d 505 (6th Cir. 2008) (upheld forced medication where defendant faced capital charge)
- United States v. Gutierrez, 704 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2013) (prosecution expresses societal disapproval and deterrence)
- United States v. Rivera-Guerrero, 426 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2005) (involuntary medication generally disfavored)