Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Applications
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

Medication & Mentally Ill - What is an Important Government Interest?

7/21/2014

6 Comments

 
Picture
By Tanner Bowen

Tanner Bowen is a rising freshman at University of Pennsylvania.

The issue of mental health in the legal system is one that has recently been brought back into the spotlight. While the overarching question of how to deal with the mentally impaired still looms over us, courts have recently begun to rule on a smaller aspect of the issue: whether the government can involuntarily administer medication to defendants declared incompetent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit recently heard the case United States v Breedlove, where a man named Norman Breedlove was indicted for heroin trafficking and felony firearm possession. After a plea deal was negotiated, Breedlove filed a “Notice of Ineffective Counsel”, believing that his counsel was trying to conspire against him. This led to a psychological evaluation where Breedlove was found to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia, his delusions preventing him from standing trial. This is when the U.S. Government requested Breedlove be involuntarily put on antipsychotics. [1]


This case was guided by the Supreme Court case of Sell v United States, where the majority, led by Justice Breyer, found that Charles Sell's 60+ accounts of Medicaid fraud did not warrant the government involuntarily administering antipsychotics so that Sell could stand trial. Additionally, the Rehnquist Court set out a stringent test for administering antipsychotics involuntarily, which asks:

1) Does it promote an important governmental interest?
2) Does involuntary medicine further the government’s interest?
3) Are there viable alternatives?
4) Is the treatment medically appropriate? [2]

Although this was just one of many Sell hearings since the Supreme Court set this standard, the Breedlove case came with uniquely interesting issues. For one, the defense counsel argued whether it was a “compelling governmental interest” to involuntarily administer medicine to a man indicted for heroin trafficking and felony firearm possession within the scope of a plea deal that would have shortened his sentence to ten years.

This case also serves as another example of the ongoing issues with the relationship between the courts and certified medical personnel. Although a psychologist and a psychiatrist both testified at the District Court hearing, the defense counsel pursued an argument that, despite the experts’ testimonies, he – as counsel – saw signs of improvement in Breedlove and requested a reevaluation.  

This odd counsel-client relationship, coupled with the persistence of the defendant in arguing that the experiment cited by expert Dr. Reardon was fallacious because it did not have a control group, resulted in Judge Cudhay citing in his opinion: "...the counsel's expertise is in law, not psychology..." [1]

This ruling reminds everyone that society has historically deemed "mentally impaired" persons as unable to function or make "correct decisions" on their own.  Although we have not forgotten the awful treatment of these individuals that Dorothea Dix advocated against for over a hundred years ago, society today seems to have pushed our mental patients under the rug. We hold the notion that almost anyone with a mental disease is dangerous and needs treatment in order to become "normal".  

Furthermore, patients are often subject to years of surveillance under clinicians, which seems cause for concern given the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee to speedy trial. Breedlove was no exception. He had to be surveyed for months in a clinic in North Carolina before he was transferred back to Illinois so he could begin his competency treatment and, ultimately, his trial.

The Seventh Circuit in this case ruled that the government was able to administer the antipsychotics with the statement that the drug Haloperidol could even improve the quality of Breedlove's life by alleviating the delusions that he currently suffered from. [3]

Despite this ruling and the ease at which the Seventh Circuit delivered its opinion, the legal concept of involuntarily administration is still mind-boggling to many. It can be so intrusive and life-altering that many wonder whether the subjection of medication could ever be the "least intrusive means". Determining what truly constitutes an important governmental interest as well as what constitutes a medically appropriate solution to a problem so that justice can be served is a complex and often subjective question.

Although the case is unlikely to make it to the Supreme Court, it poses the question of whether the "government's interest in bringing to trial an individual accused of a serious crime" warrants the potential infringement of a person’s rights – even if they are deemed “insane”.


[1] United States v. Breedlove, <http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca7/13-3406/13-3406-2014-06-30.pdf>
[2] Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 180-82.
[3] Ronald Bassman, "Mental Illness and the Freedom to Refuse Treatment: Privilege or Right," American Psychological Association, 36, no.5 (2005): 488-497.


Photo Credit: Flickr user e-Magine Art
6 Comments
Norman Breedlove link
5/10/2019 04:56:27 pm

The records feels to reflect the fact that in NORMAN BREEDLOVE case No. 10 CR 50078-5. After the May 6, 2015 involuntarily medicate order Breedlove initiated an appeal pursuant to SELL in which he raised his on going argument that in part he was wrongfully involuntarily medicated with ant-psychotic drugs because the ruling in SELL doesn't allow for forced medication in the post plea pre-sentencing period.

Reply
Norman Breedlove link
5/13/2019 08:17:55 am

In case: 3-10-cr-50078, See R 627-1 at 46-47, which shows Breedlove argued that the district Court erred in holding both Sell hearing because Sell does not apply in the post-plea, pre-sentencing period, in which the public records in this case feel to show

Reply
Norman Breedlove link
9/9/2019 08:12:45 pm

The District Court adequate findings as to each of the four Sell factors it rely on both time's judge Kapala approved for Breedlove to be forcibly medicated, the factual basis of those findings adequate Kapala on Wednesday, June 29, 2016 granted a motion to set aside Breedlove guilty plea Aka the same adequate findings in part because Kapala agreed that the adequate findings are basis on insufficient factual basis

Reply
Norman Breedlove link
9/13/2019 04:11:35 am

According to Norman Breedlove's 5/24/2012 plea agreement for the purpose for the administration forcefully Breedlove antipsychotics drugs the government did not have important interest, so Breedlove forced drugging could not further the government interest as Judge Kapala setting aside Breedlove 5/24/2012 plea agreement because him and the government in part agreed the guilty plea was basis on insufficient factual basis.

Reply
Norman Breedlove link
9/15/2019 05:05:25 pm

Norman Breedlove affirmation by Judge Kapala to be involuntarily drug was an denial and infringement of constitutional Rights that render the 5/24/2012 plea agreement AKA judgment of guilt vulnerable to collateral attack in part because the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit was erroneous because Breedlove appeal was not from a PRETRIAL order. So, was not immediately appealable. The fact are Breedlove brought an interlocutory, collateral attack, appeal that was a post judgment of guilt pre-sentencing interlocutory appeal in which Breedlove is arguing in his 2255 Motion "SHALL VACATE" all judgments are the only appropriate out come to his circumstances. See R. Docket No. 3:19-cv-50090

Reply
Norman Breedlove link
9/15/2019 05:33:47 pm

Breedlove situation need to be resolved because these are important issues of constitutional importance yet completely separate from merits of difference action throughout his case, yet was effectively ruled unreviewable on appeal , and maybe on 2255 motion, etc after his final judgment.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sam Nadler
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​