United States v. Gary Mikulich
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 21354
| 6th Cir. | 2013Background
- Mikulich arrested March 2011 for attempting to destroy a government building by explosive and related charges; he showed erratic behavior at initial appearance and was found incompetent to stand trial, committed for treatment; government sought involuntary antipsychotic medication under Sell framework; magistrate and district court concluded four-factor Sell test supported involuntary medication; Mikulich appealed challenging the first Sell factor (important government interest) due to potential civil commitment or insanity defense; court compared to Grigsby and held no sufficient contrary evidence
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether government has an important interest overriding liberty in involuntary medication | Mikulich argues uncertain civil commitment/insanity defense weaken interest | Government contends serious charges and danger justify prosecution | Yes: important interest established; cases require more than speculative risk |
| Whether potential civil commitment undermines government interest | Uncertainty of civil commitment undermines interest | Uncertainty does not defeat interest; Grigsby distinguishable | No: uncertainty alone insufficient to undermine interest |
| Whether potential insanity defense undermines government interest | Insanity defense could undermine prosecution | Insanity defense not a Sell factor; insufficient evidence of likelihood | No: insanity defense does not undermine interest given lack of evidence of likelihood |
Key Cases Cited
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (U.S. 2003) (four-factor Sell test for involuntary medication)
- Green v. United States, 532 F.3d 538 (6th Cir. 2008) (reliance on maximum statutory penalty to gauge 'serious' crime)
- Evans v. United States, 404 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2005) (two-step approach to government interest in prosecution)
- United States v. Grigsby, 712 F.3d 964 (6th Cir. 2013) (distinguishes civil commitment likelihood as a factor; uncertainty not dispositive)
- United States v. Gutierrez, 704 F.3d 442 (5th Cir. 2013) (insanity as a potential defense not controlling against prosecutorial interest)
- United States v. Bradley, 417 F.3d 1107 (10th Cir. 2005) (civil commitment standards used in evaluating government interest)
- Dixon v. United States, 548 U.S. 1 (2006) (burden on insanity defense affirmative defense; not directly controlling)