United States v. Joseph Brooks
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 8581
| 9th Cir. | 2014Background
- Brooks, 53, with a long history of paranoid schizophrenia, was found mentally incompetent for federal arson proceedings and hospitalized under 18 U.S.C. § 4241(d)(1).
- An internal Harper hearing (Mar. 5, 2012) declined involuntary antipsychotic medication.
- The government sought to medicate Brooks under Sell v. United States to restore competency; a Sell hearing occurred Aug. 7, 2012.
- The district court held Brooks eligible for involuntary medication, finding all four Sell factors satisfied and authorized medication without a time limit and continued hospitalization under § 4241(d)(2).
- Brooks appealed, the district court stayed the order, and the appellate court remanded for new Sell inquiry due to the lapse of time since the original order and to consider alternative grounds.
- The issues on remand include whether the government’s interests under Sell remain compelling, whether any Harper grounds can be alternative grounds, and a time-limited Sell order.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Sell factors justify involuntary medication | Brooks—government interests insufficient | United States—Sell factors satisfied | Remanded for new Sell inquiry; factors reevaluated on remand |
| Whether any Harper grounds remain viable before Sell | Brooks—Harper grounds not adequately considered | United States—alternate grounds may be needed | Remanded to determine no other basis before new Sell analysis |
| Time limits on the Sell order | Brooks—no explicit duration limits | United States—time limits not set | Remanded to set time limitation on involuntary treatment |
| Whether dangerousness inquiry under Harper is required on remand | Brooks—Harper inquiry relevant | United States—dangerousness assessment may be unnecessary | Remanded to address dangerousness inquiry if applicable on remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) (involuntary antipsychotic drugs may be used to render a defendant competent under strict safeguards)
- Loughner v. United States, 672 F.3d 731 (9th Cir. 2012) (Sell inquiry is more demanding than Harper; deference to Harper where appropriate)
- Hernandez-Vasquez v. United States, 513 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 2007) (first Sell factor requires substantial governmental interests and relevant circumstances beyond crime seriousness)
- Rivera-Guerrero v. United States, 426 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2005) (Sell factors govern; Harper is a separate standard; collateral-order review context)