Sell v. U. S. [539 US 166 (2003)] has greatly complicated the procedural requirements for administering psychiatric medication to incompetent federal defendants who are unable or unwilling to consent to such treatment. Although intended to further such defendants' legal interests, often the result has been adverse for defendants' medical and legal interests. A comparable theme of unanticipated consequences runs through the case law upon which Sell built; given that Sell created a new class of interloculatory appeal, more unanticipated consequences can be expected to develop. What follows is a personal account of these matters.
EricksonS.K.CicconeJ.R.SchwarzkopfS.B.LambertiS., & VitaccoM.J. (2007). Legal fallacies of antipsychotic drugs. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 35, 235–246.
2.
HerbelB.L. & StemlachH. (2007). Involuntary medication treatment for competency restoration of 22 defendants with delusional disorder. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 35, 47–59.
3.
Parham v. J.R. 442 U.S. 584 (1979).
4.
Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992).
5.
Sell v. U.S., 539 U.S. 166 (2003).
6.
U.S. v. Brandon, 158 F.3d 947 (6th Cir. 1998).
7.
U.S. v. Ecker, 30 F.3d 966 (8th Cir., 1994).
8.
U.S. v. Evans, 404 F.3d 227 (4th Cir., 2005).
9.
U.S. v. Gomes 289 F.3d 71 (2nd Cir. 2002).
10.
U.S. v. Hernandez-Vasquez, 506 F.3d. 811 (9th Cir., 2007).
11.
U.S. v. Miller, 2–02-cr-00106, USDC for the District of Maine.
12.
U.S. v. Morgan, 193 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 1999).
13.
U.S. v. Morrison, 415 F.3d. 1180 (10th Cir, 2005).
