Court considers forcing suspect’s medication

November 18, 2010|Associated Press

ATLANTA — A federal appeals court yesterday considered whether a paranoid schizophrenic should be forcibly medicated so he can stand trial on bank robbery charges in a case that could help shape how far the government can go to make sure the mentally ill are competent to stand trial.

Michael Diaz was charged in April 2004 with two armed bank robberies in Atlanta and represented himself at his first trial, despite concerns he was delusional. He was convicted and sentenced to more than 48 years in prison, but the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit reversed the conviction.

Prosecutors told federal judges yesterday that Diaz would be competent to stand trial again only if he was forcibly medicated. Diaz’s attorney said the drug injections could have life-threatening consequences and violate his constitutional rights.

The judges peppered Diaz’s attorney with questions that suggested they sided with prosecutors, even though the Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that forcible medication should be used rarely. The nation’s top court said then that forcible medication should only be used if less intrusive alternatives cannot achieve the same results. Few courts have since tried to interpret exactly what the ruling means.

A federal judge found Diaz incompetent to stand trial in May 2009 and sent him to a rehabilitation center for four months of treatment. Six days later, doctors recommended that forcing him to take the medications was the best option, and a judge agreed. Diaz appealed the decision.

George Annas, a bioethics expert at Boston University who has written about the issue, predicted Diaz’s case could go to the Supreme Court if the panel rules against him.