Sell v. United States: Is the Supreme Court Giving a Dose of Bad Medicine?: The Constitutionality of the Right to Forcibly Medicate Mentally Ill Defendants for Purposes of Trial Competence

Abstract

This case note will analyze the Supreme Court's decision in Sell v. United States and its potential future impact on forcible medication of defendants for the sole purpose of rendering them competent for trial. Part II examines the historical background of the case law regarding the development of an individual's right to refuse antipsychotic medications, in conjunction with a state's ability to override that liberty interest. Part III provides a summary of the factual background leading up to the Court's opinion. Part IV analyzes Justice Breyer's opinion for the Court and Justice Scalia's dissenting opinion. Part V considers the impact of Sell on: the well-settled exception to the final judgment rule, the collateral order doctrine, the burden of proof required of prosecutors seeking a forcible medication order, defendants declared incompetent for trial purposes, and the mentally ill in general. Finally, Part VI concludes the analysis with final considerations of the significance of the Court's decision in Sell.