Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
No. 14-4388
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
T. S. Ellis, III, Senior
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00336-TSE-IDD-1)
Argued:
Before TRAXLER,
Judges.
Chief
Judge,
Decided:
and
WYNN
and
HARRIS,
Circuit
ARGUED:
Nicholas John Xenakis, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC
DEFENDER, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Julia K.
Martinez, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF:
Michael S. Nachmanoff,
Federal Public Defender, Kenneth P. Troccoli, Assistant Federal
Public Defender, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellant.
Dana J. Boente, United
States
Attorney,
OFFICE
OF
THE
UNITED
STATES
ATTORNEY,
Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Delusional
Disorder,
Persecutory
Type,
was
found
General
for
mental
health
treatment
and
evaluation.
render
himself
competent,
the
district
court
granted
the
Given the
this
burden
is
met.
In
this
case,
we
conclude,
the
is
substantially
likely
to
restore
Watsons
Accordingly, we reverse.
I.
The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting
persons body . . . represents a substantial interference with
that persons liberty.
at
134,
for
the
use
of
such
medications
threatens
an
On
the
physical
side,
there
is
the
violence
persons
mental
state
that
truly
distinguishes
United States v.
Bush, 585 F.3d 806, 813 (4th Cir. 2009) (quoting Harper, 494
U.S. at 238 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and dissenting in
part)).
For
those
reasons,
administration
of
deprivation
liberty
of
as
we
have
antipsychotic
in
the
recognized,
medication
most
literal
the
forcible
constitutes
and
fundamental
sense, Bush, 585 F.3d at 813 (quoting Harper, 494 U.S. at 238
(Stevens,
J.,
concurring
in
part
and
dissenting
in
part)),
The
494 U.S. at
227.
Under certain circumstances, a mentally ill defendant who
is not dangerous to himself or others within the meaning of
Harper
may
nevertheless
be
forcibly
medicated
for
the
sole
See Sell,
Id. at 180.
medication
under
deployed,
and
orders,
which
routine.
Sell
courts
carry
is
must
an
that
vigilant
unsavory
must
not
to
ensure
pedigree,
do
be
casually
that
not
such
become
Cir. 2013).
To
minimize[]
the
risk
of
erroneous
decisions
in
this
require that the government meet its burden by the clear and
convincing standard.
738 F.3d 284, 292 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Holding the government to a
clear and convincing standard of proof affords due regard to the
nature of the liberty interest at stake in forced-medication
cases.); United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538, 545 (6th Cir.
2008) (applying clear and convincing standard); United States v.
Gomes, 387 F.3d 157, 160 (2d Cir. 2004) (same).
That is a heavy
First, the
those
interests.
medication
interests,
which
White,
620
F.3d
at
410
(quoting
requires
significantly
proof
that
the
further[s]
[its]
medication
is
interfere
significantly
with
5
the
defendant's
ability
to
(internal
omitted).
quotation
medication
must
marks
be
necessary
to
Third,
further
the
the
involuntary
government's
administration
patients
of
best
condition.
drugs
medical
is
medically
interests
appropriate
in
light
of
and
[his]
in
the
medical
With this
II.
A.
On
handgun
September
at
28,
Coast
2012,
Guard
Watson
was
helicopter
observed
flying
shooting
overhead.
The
helicopter was not damaged, and none of the three Coast Guard
employees on board was injured.
indicted
for
attempted
destruction
of
an
aircraft,
his
boat
going
through
his
letters
and
papers.
Watson
in
protection
Elizabeths
the
of
Washington,
the
British
Hospital
(St.
D.C.,
area
Embassy
in
and
order
was
Elizabeths)
to
seek
the
to
St.
referred
for
mental
health
treatment.
On the basis of this interview, Peterson concluded that
Watson was unable to participate meaningfully and effectively
in his defense as a result of his delusions, and in particular
his belief that his status as a covert operative for the United
Kingdom entitles him to diplomatic immunity.
The magistrate
in
Butner,
North
Carolina
(FMC
Butner)
for
mental
Approximately
government
Butner
six
submitted
staff
months
to
the
psychiatrist
later,
court
Dr.
Robert
on
April
report
G.
4,
2013,
completed
Lucking
the
by
FMC
(Lucking),
exclusively
substantial
on
Luckings
likelihood
that
opinion
forcible
to
show
medication
there
would
is
render
his
report,
Lucking
diagnosed
Watson
with
Delusional
the
presence
of
one
or
more
delusions
had
not
been
nonbizarre
delusions
that
with
antipsychotic
such treatment.
to
justify
forcible
medication
under
Harper.
the
risperidone, 3
antipsychotic
antipsychotic
medication
is
asserting
substantially
likely
that
to
render
in
antipsychotic
their
psychotic
medication,
and
symptoms
when
treated
that
body
of
with
evidence
to
medication.
competency
Lucking
when
also
treated
asserted
with
that
antipsychotic
Watson
had
taken
Lucking
drew
the
logical
inference
[that
Watson]
However, Lucking
admitted that he did not have the medical records from that
Lucking
from
medication,
and
Delusional
that
restored to competency.
he
Disorder
believe[d]
all
with
of
antipsychotic
them
had
been
information
in
public
forum,
even
with
the
[district court].
Luckings
opinion
regarding
the
efficacy
of
involuntary
controlled,
double-blind
research
studies
as
to
the
to
psychological.
treatment
plan
treatment,
He
did
whether
expressed
not
concern
adequately
pharmacological
that
address
the
or
involuntary
Watsons
strongly
condition.
Finally,
Hilkey
indicated
that
it
was
his
would
be
capacity
increase
sufficiently
to
form
the
likelihood
restored,
degree
of
[Watsons]
given
Watsons
therapeutic
competency
apparent
alliance,
as
findings with respect to the first two Sell factors are relevant
to Watsons arguments on appeal.
11
interest
was
mitigated
by
the
possibility
of
an
Id.
respect
to
the
second
Sell
Id. at *15.
factor,
the
magistrate
to
restore
Watsons
competency.
To
reach
this
Disorder.
forensic
Id.
evaluation
The
did
magistrate
not
judge
undermine
held
that
Luckings
Id. at *16.
the
and
medication.
recommendations
granting
the
and
findings
governments
of
motion
the
for
magistrate
involuntary
Order, United
States v. Watson, No. 1:13-cr-366 (E.D. Va. May 27, 2014), ECF
No. 76.
III.
On appeal, Watson challenges the district courts findings
with respect to the first and second prongs of Sell.
Because we
and
in
particular,
its
burden
of
proving,
by
clear
and
to
restore
Watson
to
competence 4
we
do
not
decide
13
We are, however,
charged with ensuring that the district court actually makes the
necessary
proper
findings,
legal
and
standard
that
it
makes
that
it
asks
them
and
pursuant
answers
to
the
the
right
See Jiminez v.
Mary Washington Coll., 57 F.3d 369, 379 (4th Cir. 1995) (We
reverse
factual
finding
as
being
clearly
erroneous
if,
the
entire
evidence
is
left
with
the
definite
and
firm
14
id.
(clear
disregard[s]
error
may
substantial
conclusion
contrary
conclusion
contrary
to
occur
when
evidence
that
would
that
to
reached
the
clear
or
district
militate
otherwise
weight
of
court
the
reaches
a
a
evidence
is
substantially
likely
to
restore
Watsons
And
as
part
of
that
showing,
the
government
must
defendant
competent
to
stand
trial.
United
States
v.
Evans, 404 F.3d 227, 242 (4th Cir. 2005) (emphasis in original).
Merely showing a proposed treatment to be generally effective
against
the
defendants
medical
condition
is
insufficient
to
([I]n order to satisfy this second factor of the Sell test, the
government must not only show that a treatment plan works on a
defendants type of mental disease in general, but that it is
likely to work on this defendant in particular.) (emphasis in
original); see also United States v. Ruiz-Gaxiola, 623 F.3d 684,
700
(9th
Cir.
2010)
(finding
this
burden
unmet
where
the
the
individual
defendants
particular
medical
condition,
the
likely
success
of
the
governments
proposed
circumstances.
The
16
district
court
did
find
that
[t]he
record
convincingly
reflects
that
the
government
has
government
sufficiently
medical situation.
addressed
Watsons
particular
merely
because
Lucking
testified
that
it
was.
See
id.
In
his
experience
with
his
own
patients,
see
id.
at
*15,
medication
under
Sell,
courts
engage
in
the
proper
burden
through
generalized
evidence
alone
would
effectively
obligated
exceptional
to
to
ensure
warrant
that
the
given
case
extraordinary
is
Because we
sufficiently
measure
of
forcible
White, 620
of
antipsychotics
as
applied
with
specificity
to
of
evidence
in
Luckings
report
or
testimony
that
in
other
words,
where
the
district
This is not a
courts
failure
to
the
virtually
entirety
second
Sell
nothing
in
of
the
prong.
On
Luckings
governments
the
report
case
contrary:
or
that
There
testimony
is
is
the
sufficiently
the
psychiatric
literature
that
individuals
with
the
psychotic
medication.
In
symptoms
other
when
words,
treated
he
with
asserts:
antipsychotic
(1) antipsychotic
treat
his
testifying
psychotic
that
Watson
symptoms.
has
See
also
J.A.
75
psychotic
symptom;
This is
19
For
one
thing,
many
of
those
studies
concern
the
and
probative
value
expertise,
where
doctors
doctors
professional
area
of
expertise
Because they
the
individual
defendants
particular
medical
condition.
complete
recovery).
The
one
study
cited
by
the
antipsychotic
medication
to
20
restore
the
competency
of
L.
Treatment
Herbel
for
Delusional
&
Hans
Competency
Disorder,
Stelmach,
Involuntary
Restoration
35
J.
Am.
of
Acad.
22
Medication
Defendants
Psychiatry
L.
With
47,
58
(2007).
This is not to say that these and other studies mentioned
in Luckings report are of no evidentiary weight at all.
They
fairly
that
could
antipsychotic
be
understood
medication
Disorder in general.
may
to
provide
some
be
effective
evidence
against
Delusional
not
believe
they
can
provide
the
requisite
clear
and
was
substantially
likely
to
restore
defendants
Watsons
particular
condition
and
circumstances.
The
could
be
relevant
to
Watson
specifically
but
here,
There
is, for instance, no evidence that they suffered from the same
type
of
Delusional
Disorder,
that
they
received
the
same
inappropriate
to
share
other
peoples
treatment
[and]
information
relating
his
patients
experiences
But
to
not
whether
forcible
medication
is
substantially
substantially
unlikely
to
have
side
effects
that
will
be
made
government]
with
seeks
to
respect
to
medicate
the
particular
defendant
involuntarily,
id.
at
[the
815-16,
individual
defendant
and
the
particular
drugs
the
this
case,
however,
individualized
analysis
counterproductive
highlights
analysis
its
of
while
side
failure
the
the
of
Watsons
effects
to
likelihood
government
from
provide
that
does
provide
vulnerability
risperidone,
comparable
risperidone
that
an
to
only
individualized
will
actually
evidence
medication.
of
positive
response
to
antipsychotic
it
before.
As
Lucking
made
clear,
his
recommendation
symptoms
the
same
nonspecific,
syllogistic
241.
D.
We are concerned here not only with the deficiencies in the
governments affirmative case for forcible medication, but also
with
the
substantial
questions
raised
about
the
governments
As we have recognized,
F.3d
at
consideration
814.
of
any
That
scrutiny
substantial
24
and
necessarily
credible
See Bush,
requires
evidence
that
But there is no
factual
normal deference.
determinations
to
which
we
would
owe
the
2014
WL
1901256,
at
*3,
*16
(As
the
Report
and
by
perfunctorily
court
here
disregarding
excluded
from
Hilkeys
consideration
report,
the
significant
is
competency.
likely
to
succeed
by
restoring
Watsons
that
Disorder]
what
compared
research
does
to
other
exist
as
25
psychotic
to
disorders,
Delusional
Disorder
decisions
consideration
persecutory
treatment.
to
below
also
Hilkeys
delusions
are
failed
concern
that
especially
to
give
adequate
Watsons
unlikely
to
particular
respond
to
aberrant
thoughts,
Watsons
condition
is
likely
to
be
with
fears
psychotropic
of
death,
medications,
involuntary
which
treatment
include
will
only
Those are
(finding
second-factor
burden
26
unmet
where
government
of
governmental
than
40
years
conspiracies
[would]
resist
that
ha[d]
involuntary
persisted
medication
the
government
had
produced
evidence
relat[ing]
the
This failure to
See Chatmon,
718 F.3d at 376 (finding clear error where the district court
failed to offer some reason why it did not credit contrary
arguments).
case:
treatment
the
is
meagerness
substantially
of
the
likely
27
evidence
to
that
restore
forcible
Watsons
relevant
legal
standard,
failure
to
consider
contrary
to
that
cumulatively,
they
In this case, it is
leave
us
with
the
court clearly erred in finding that the government has met its
burden
of
proving
by
clear
and
convincing
evidence
i.e.,
without
hesitancy,
as
to
the
truth
of
the
is
substantially
likely
to
render
the
defendant
is
no
explanation
that
the
court
could
provide
on
allow
us
to
conclude
that
the
government
has
met
its
817, 818, and Evans, 404 F.3d at 242-43, we remanded rather than
reversing
forced
after
finding
medication
under
the
record
Sell.
insufficient
But
in
to
those
support
cases,
we
that
the
government
29
has
not
justified
forcible
IV.
Accordingly, the order of the district court is
REVERSED.
30
district
involuntarily
court
medicate
granted
John
the
Watson
governments
in
order
petition
to
restore
to
his
challenge
the
sufficiency
of
the
governments
the
district
court
erred
by
not
evidence
Instead, he argues
requiring
supportive
If the issue
to
the
issues
actually
raised
by
Watson,
conclude
circumstance
is
vacate
31
and
remand
for
additional
findings,
not
simply
reverse
the
district
court
outright.
of
restoring
his
competency
to
stand
trial,
the
See
Sell
v.
United
States,
539
U.S.
166,
180-81
(2003); United States v. Bush, 585 F.3d 806, 813-14 (4th Cir.
2009).
First,
the
government
must
prove
that
important
Second, the
the
governments
interests
because
it
is
Id. at 181.
Third, it
interests
unlikely
achieve
to
because
less
substantially
the
intrusive
same
means
results.
are
Id.
Id.
at
242
(first
emphasis
added;
footnote
and
internal
court reviewing for clear error may not reverse a lower courts
finding of fact simply because it would have decided the case
differently.
entire
evidence,
it
is
left
33
with
the
definite
and
firm
United States v.
Wooden, 693 F.3d 440, 451 (4th Cir. 2012) (internal quotation
marks and alteration omitted).
entirety,
the
court
of
appeals
may
not
reverse
it
even
Anderson v.
In cases
2013).
II.
Given the fact-bound nature of this appeal, I will first
summarize the primary evidence before the district court:
the
study
by
Byron
L.
Herbel
and
Hans
Stelmach
(the
Herbel Study) 1 that was relied upon by Lucking; and the report
of
Dr.
James
Hilkey,
psychologist
who
served
as
Watsons
expert witness.
A.
Dr.
Lucking
submitted
report
detailing
his
views
and
J.A. 357.
Lucking described
was
incompetent
to
stand
trial
because
his
paranoid
and
prevented
Lucking
consequences
him
from
stated
probability
Mr.
his
of
the
proceedings
assisting
his
opinion
that
Watsons
attorney.
competency
there
can
explained
that
against
J.A.
was
be
him
359,
and
360.
substantial
restored
through
J.A. 376.
antipsychotic
medications
can
he
summarized
principle.
various
studies
supporting
this
general
35
disorder
pessimistic.
with
antipsychotic
medication
was
10%).
however,
J.A.
that
371
more
(emphasis
recent
added).
literature
Lucking
indicates
treatment
(i.e.,
double-blind
full
or
partial
remission
of
placebo-controlled
or
non-blinded
placebo-
disorder,
and
that
the
more
recent
literature
J.A.
J.A. 374.
36
The
report
explained
second-generation
the
difference
between
drugs
noted
antipsychotic
and
first-
that
and
second-
J.A. 376.
medications
that
could
be
administered
involuntarily and noted that risperidone is the only secondgeneration antipsychotic that could practicably be administered
involuntarily.
previously
admitted
been
to
hospital
in
Washington,
D.C.,
the fact that Watson was released from the hospital that he
responded positively to the drug, and his treatment plan for
Watson recommended the use of risperidone.
Luckings
report
antipsychotic
would
stated
not
that
produce
side
treatment
effects
with
that
an
would
had
no
underlying
disease
that
would
preclude
the
J.A. 375.
37
In
the
report,
Lucking
explained
that
no
less-intrusive
as
an
adjunct
to
treatment
with
antipsychotics,
Lucking also
incompetent
antipsychotic
to
medication
Watsons competency.
[o]n
an
disorder
stand
successfully. 3
was
and
that
substantially
treatment
likely
to
with
an
restore
involuntary
patients
trial
with
J.A. 32.
basis
approximately
antipsychotic
ten
medication,
delusionalall
of
them
for
disorders
Watson.
and
Lucking
delusions
explained
respond
that
positively
because
to
thought
antipsychotic
had
previously
been
treated
with
it
and
apparently
As Lucking explained,
64-65;
see
also
J.A.
76
([C]linically,
believe
39
B.
Dr.
James
Hilkey,
Watsons
expert
witness,
prepared
report after interviewing Watson for nearly ten hours over the
course of four separate interviews.
The
reaction
Hilkey
that
to
he
the
was
risperidone.
terrified
of
Watson,
the
however,
side
told
effects
of
In
Hilkeys
view,
Watsons
fears
about
the
to
treatment
pharmacological
efficacious
than
Schizophrenia.
with
treatment
with
Id.
antipsychotics,
of
Delusional
typical
psychotic
Hilkey
J.A.
medication
Id.
stated
Disorders
[is]
disorder[s]
that
less
such
as
Hilkey
had
pharmacological
that
[t]he
some
question
treatment
chronic
with
nature
Mr.
of
Mr.
about
the
Watson,
efficacy
J.A.
Watsons
383,
illness
of
noting
and
the
to
treatment
(pharmacological
and
psychological)
J.A. 382.
As Hilkey explained,
and
medications
reported
to
personal
include
pronounced
fears
with
of
psychotropic
death,
Hilkey
Failure to
with his attorneys showed his ability to form some degree of the
therapeutic
Hilkey
increase
alliance
strongly
the
restored.
required
believed
likelihood
for
that
his
therapy
to
supportive
competency
succeed,
therapy
could
be
and
could
sufficiently
J.A. 384.
C.
delusional
persecutory
delusional
disorder,
and
disorder,
grandiose
grandiose
persecutory
type;
type.
and
Overall,
type;
five
one
were
seventeen
had
mixed
of
the
type,
eleven
competency.
Of
the
competency,
one
was
five
(69%)
were
patients
mixed
type
who
and
reported
were
the
not
other
restored
to
restored
four
to
were
persecutory type.
The information reviewed was sufficient in nineteen cases
for the authors of the Herbel Study to determine how long before
treatment the symptoms had begun.
for five years or less for nine patients, seven of whom were
restored to competency.
before
regaining
competency.
The
authors
thus
many
previous
medication trials.
of
medication
in
studies
involved
significantly
shorter
previous
studies
provided
plausible
are
medication.
empirically
refractory
J.A.
to
147;
see
unsupported
the
treatment
also
with
J.A.
opinion
141
antipsychotic
(describing
asserted
in
as
forensic
43
victims
of
governmental
conspiracy
were
not
likely
to
cases
studied,
sixteen
had
delusions
As to the twentyof
governmental
the
same
medication
government
does
not
appear
nonresponse to treatment.
The
authors
that
noted
to
is
implementing
be
useful
study
was
involuntary
predictor
of
J.A. 149.
that
their
subject
to
the
including
the
lack
of
standardized
clinical
Id.
Because
of those limitations,
some patients may have been misdiagnosed and wrongly
included or excluded from this study population.
Standard research methods to reduce bias, such as
random assortment to assigned treatment groups, the
use of a placebo control group, and blinded outcome
measures, were not possible in this study.
Without
these
safeguards, the
opinions
of
the
forensic
44
of the study:
[T]he patient cohort was selected in a real-world
manner by criminal prosecution, after which they were
assessed and involuntarily treated in a real-world
manner at a forensic mental health facility. The main
contribution of this study was the observation of
treatment
response
in
patients
with
delusional
disorder who, in contrast to the usual protocols in
community research studies, were not permitted to drop
out of treatment.
That 10 of the 17 patients who
responded
to
treatment
required
continuous
antipsychotic treatment for at least three months, and
some up to five months, was unexpected.
This result
provides a plausible explanation for the presumed
refractory nature of delusional disorder symptoms.
The real obstacle to a positive treatment response in
delusional
disorder
may
not
be
the
intrinsic
biological features of the illness, but may instead be
the difficulties in convincing these patients to
adhere to an adequate trial of medication.
J.A. 150 (emphasis added).
III.
When
considering
whether
the
governments
proposed
district
courts
analysis
reflects
45
clearly
erroneous
Dr.
Hilkeys
Acknowledging
conclusions
that
Hilkey
constitutes
never
clear
directly
error.).
stated
that
the
Brief of
government
to
provide
supportive
therapy
as
part
of
the
treatment plan.
Rather than focusing on the need for supportive therapy,
however, the majority reverses the district courts order after
concluding
that
the
governments
evidence
was
insufficiently
that
insufficient
the
to
governments
carry
its
generalized
burden
of
proof
evidence
under
Sell.
was
See
would
effectively
allow
it
to
prevail
in
every
case
the
district
courts
distillation
of
the
evidence.
decision.
See
Anderson,
470
U.S.
at
573-74;
United
States v. Springer, 715 F.3d 535, 545 (4th Cir. 2013); see also
VICI Racing, LLC v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 763 F.3d 273, 283 (3d
Cir. 2014) (A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when it is
completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support displaying some
hue
of
credibility
or
bears
no
rational
data.
relationship
(internal
to
quotation
the
supportive
evidentiary
marks
omitted)).
164
(2d
Cir.
2004)
(Sotomayor,
Circuit
Judge);
accord
Miller v. Mercy Hosp., Inc., 720 F.2d 356, 361 (4th Cir. 1983)
(explaining that clear error may be found where the findings
under
review
were
made
47
without
properly
taking
into
An insufficient
evidence
and
properly
accounts
for
contrary
evidence.
court
--
insufficient
evidence
is
insufficient,
this
case,
Watson
simply
does
not
challenge
the
that
to
the
satisfy
the
Sell
governments
requirements,
evidence
was
not
nor
does
he
sufficiently
Instead, by arguing
Watson
is
challenging
only
the
district
courts
on
an
entirely
different
basis
involving
an
entirely
courts
order
without
the
majority
is
granting relief that no one has sought, as Watson does not seek
a reversal, but instead asks this court to vacate and remand for
further proceedings. 6
It is well-settled that this court may affirm a district
courts order on any basis appearing in the record.
See, e.g.,
Blum v. Bacon, 457 U.S. 132, 137 n.5 (1982) ([A]n appellee may
rely upon any matter appearing in the record in support of the
judgment below.); Scott v. United States, 328 F.3d 132, 137
(4th Cir. 2003) (We are, of course, entitled to affirm on any
ground appearing in the record, including theories not relied
5
49
When it comes to
non-jurisdictional
issues
that
are
not
properly
presented in an appellants opening brief, see, e.g., SuarezValenzuela v. Holder, 714 F.3d 241, 248-49 (4th Cir. 2013), much
less issues that the appellant never even attempts to raise.
While we have the power to address issues not raised by the
appellant, see A Helping Hand, LLC v. Baltimore Cnty, 515 F.3d
356, 369 (4th Cir. 2008), we do not exercise that power in civil
cases
unless
the
issue
establishes
fundamental
error
or
50
issues
we
challenge
think
the
they
should
sufficiency
of
have
raised.
the
evidence
Watson
on
does
appeal,
not
and
district
sponte,
court
particularly
on
an
where
issue
the
the
majority
government
has
has
raised
been
given
sua
no
But if it were, I
In my view, the
factual
determination
that
involuntary
medication
was
In
finding
the
governments
evidence
insufficient,
the
To show the
[their]
report,
fairly
consideration
conclusions,
read,
of
is
Watson
id.
In
replete
himself
and
my
view,
Luckings
with
evidence
of
his
particular
his
medical
condition.
According
analysis
to
the
justifying
(1) antipsychotic
symptoms;
(2)
antipsychotic
symptoms,
majority,
the
has
medication
an
analysis
Lucking
entirety
treatment
effectively
psychotic
will
the
syllogistic reasoning.
While
proposed
medication
Watson
the
symptoms;
effectively
majority
note
in
plan
treats
rejects
his
Luckings
was
that
psychotic
(3) therefore,
treat
did
of
his
as
psychotic
nonspecific,
I disagree.
report
that
there
is
in
their
psychotic
symptoms
when
treated
with
Luckings report
disorder
presented
Watsons delusions.
itself
in
Watson
and
the
nature
of
then
went
medications
on
on
to
consider
Watsons
the
specific
52
efficacy
condition
of
by
antipsychotic
discussing
the
limited
scientific
literature
addressing
the
treatment
of
indicates,
response
rate
restored
to
whose
with
patients
require.
Herbel
patients
competency)
delusions
Watsons. 8
plan
by
the
had
Study
with
and
persisted
shows
the
high
Indeed, as Luckings
high
persecutory
response
for
treatment
subtype
(69%
rates
by
patients
approximately
as
long
as
literature
from
involving
Watsons
similarly
specific
situated
disorder,
as
we
for
defendants
with
duration
of
untreated
psychosis
53
that
would
adversely
interact
with
his
proposed
Bush,
inadequate
diabetes
585
F.3d
where
without
it
at
818
(finding
recommended
acknowledging
proposed
medication
that
treatment
that
defendant
can
had
plan
cause
diabetes,
after
considering
all
the
circumstances,
Lucking
54
of
communication
can
reject
Luckings
analysis
as
nonspecific,
syllogistic reasoning.
The
majority
contends
that
its
rejection
of
Luckings
Op.
the
at
17-18
(emphasis
governments
added).
evidence
While
insufficiently
the
majority
specific,
it
what
other
information
should
have
been
presented.
The
is
its
connect
the
proposed
medical
condition
but
suggestion
that
the
treatment
plan
not
also
[to]
his
age
evidence
only
and
[to
the
failed
to
Watsons]
nature
and
form
of
delusional
condition.
Study,
shows
disorder,
which
is
Watsons
medical
in
treating
the
persecutory
subtype
of
The
Herbel
Study
likewise
shows
success
in
as
long
as
Watsons,
thus
addressing
the
particular
persecutory
delusions
would
respond
to
Given the
56
physical
condition,
the
majoritys
rejection
of
the
for
taken it.
Luckings
Watson
whether
recommendation
or
rested
not
not
Watson
on
had
any
previously
individualized
treatment
of
choice
for
psychotic
symptoms
--
the
same
discussed
particular
Watson
was
above,
disorder
taking,
on
an
individualized
affecting
and
Watson,
whether
assessment
the
Watson
other
had
of
the
medications
any
underlying
on
studies
involving
treatment
based
on
patients
suffering
consideration
57
of
of
Watsons
particular
reasons
negate
individualized
the
to
risperidone 10
chose
aspects
of
does
Luckings
not
somehow
analysis
and
does
not
bear[]
on
Watsons
particular
medical
Again, I disagree.
1.
As noted by the majority, not all of the studies cited in
Luckings
report
specifically
delusional
disorder,
addressing
delusional
and
not
disorder
address
the
all
those
show
of
a
positive
treatment
of
specifically
response
to
Nonetheless, Luckings
treatment
of
delusional
disorder
10
generally
and
more
As Luckings report and testimony established, secondgeneration antipsychotics are preferred over first-generation
antipsychotics because of their less-severe side-effect profile,
and risperidone is the only second-generation medication that
can practicably be administered involuntarily.
58
the
studies
that
discuss
the
general
efficacy
of
majoritys
claim
Watsons condition.
that
the
other
studies
do
not
bear
on
with
antipsychotic
medication.
Lucking
relied
on
medication,
including
11
the
Herbel
Study,
which
59
studied
the
medication
from
efficacy
to
in
restore
delusional
the
the
prison
context
competency
disorder.
The
of
of
involuntary
defendants
scientific
suffering
literature
thus
Indeed, if these
would
bearing
on
meet
an
the
majoritys
incompetent
unexplained
defendants
standard
particular
for
medical
condition.
2.
More troubling than the majoritys claim that the academic
literature
does
not
bear
on
Watsons
particular
condition,
studies
when
determining
Herbel
governments
Study
provides
proposed
the
of
the
unequivocal
treatment
sufficiency
plan,
but
support
it
for
the
dismisses
that
to
treatment.
internal
quotation
marks
Majority
omitted).
Op.
at
The
21
(alteration
majority
does
and
not
The question
See
742
F.3d
151,
155
n.1
(4th
2014)
(reviewing
noted
above,
Luckings
concluded
that
delusional
subtype,
can
be
report
disorder,
successfully
discussed
including
treated
studies
the
with
that
persecutory
antipsychotic
The
district
court
was
thus
presented
with
with
antipsychotic
medications,
conflict
that
the
favor.
And
under
our
standard
of
review,
this
than
treating
the
positive
studies
as
evidence
the
conflict
factfinding.
The
in
the
majority
evidence
weighs
as
the
an
opportunity
conflicting
for
scientific
approach
court,
for
is
our
inconsistent
with
our
function
not
to
is
role
as
reweigh
reviewing
the
evidence
County, 365 F.3d 341, 349 (4th Cir. 2004); see Ceraso v. Motiva
Enters., LLC, 326 F.3d 303, 316 (2d Cir. 2003) (The weight of
the evidence is not a ground for reversal on appeal, and the
fact that there may have been evidence to support an inference
contrary to that drawn by the trial court does not mean that the
findings are clearly erroneous. (citation omitted)).
Moreover, the majoritys specific criticism of the Herbel
Study -- that it is vulnerable to bias -- provides no basis for
removing
equation.
the
As
Study
noted
from
above,
the
the
sufficiency-of-the-evidence
authors
of
the
Herbel
Study
chart
review.
J.A.
149-50.
These
criticisms,
are
no
medication
controlled
to
treat
studies
delusional
of
the
use
disorder,
of
antipsychotic
only
case
studies,
the
limitations
inherent
in
the
limited
on
the
conclusions.
available
literature
when
reaching
their
evidence
that
otherwise
would
permit
us
to
reject
the
exclude
them
from
consideration
when
evaluating
the
to
some
evidentiary
weight
if
there
had
been
some
Majority
Op.
at
21.
However,
all
of
the
report
studies
and
drawing
discussed
in
its
the
own
conclusions
report.
See,
about
e.g.,
the
United
States v. Bales, 813 F.2d 1289, 1293 (4th Cir. 1987) (explaining
that where the district court acts as factfinder, the judge
weighs
the
evidence,
determines
the
credibility
of
the
While
that
the
studies
addressed
the
very
condition
the
scientific
report
and
evidence
testimony
is
and
considered
viewed
in
the
along
with
light
most
that
evidence
is
sufficient
courts order.
64
to
support
the
district
D.
To the extent the majoritys real complaint is that the
governments
evidence
is
not
compelling
enough
to
constitute
evidence
probable.
that
proves
the
facts
at
issue
to
be
highly
omitted).
In my view, a factfinder could reasonably find the Herbel
Study more compelling and its conclusions more persuasive than
the earlier studies questioning the efficacy of medication for
delusional disorder.
responded
to
treatment
required
continuous
antipsychotic
the
presumed
nature
65
of
delusional
disorder
symptoms.).
Moreover,
unlike
earlier
studies
of
voluntary
of
involuntary
treatment
administered
under
provides
reasonable
basis
for
discounting
the
more
reasonably
convincingly
find
supports
that
the
the
Herbel
governments
Study
clearly
position.
Cf.
and
United
of
exclusively
recent
Dr.
on
Lucking
older
studies
over
studies,
indicating
that
defense
expert
when
Lucking
the
older
who
relied
relied
negative
on
more
view
was
making
it
there
is
evidence
in
the
record
he
recommendation.
had
As
noted
involuntarily
above,
medicated
Lucking
testified
approximately
ten
would
be
treated,
could
66
reasonably
be
viewed
by
the
because
Lucking
provided
no
details
about
those
believe
the
lack
of
detail
somehow
renders
Luckings
high
response
rate
for
all
delusional-disorder
patients,
including those with the persecutory subtype, and finds that the
presence
of
delusions
of
governmental
persecution
does
not
significant
circumstances,
refuse
to
treating
than
the
believe
consider
defendants
majority
it
Luckings
with
is
suggests.
improper
testimony
delusional
for
about
disorder
Under
the
majority
his
as
these
to
experience
part
of
its
In
basis
my
for
view,
the
then,
the
factfinder
record
to
thus
slide
provides
extra
weight
plausible
over
to
the
and
convincingly
contrary
aspects
conclusion
of
the
establishes
the
propriety
of
the
raising
governments
questions
proposed
plan,
about
that
certain
contrary
law,
but
resolution
Heyer,
740
by
instead
the
F.3d
simply
creates
factfinder.
284,
292
See,
(4th
Cir.
questions
e.g.,
2014)
of
United
fact
for
States
([E]valuating
v.
the
courts
must
defer.
(internal
quotation
marks
68
A.
In its order, the district court acknowledged that while
Hilkey
strongly
support[ed]
the
use
of
supportive
opine
treatment
in
his
plan
forensic
will
be
evaluation
that
unsuccessful.
J.A.
Dr.
Luckings
340.
Citing
Luckings report and testimony, the district court held that the
proposed
Watson
treatment
competent
governments
plan
to
motion
was
stand
to
substantially
trial,
and
involuntarily
likely
the
court
medicate
to
render
granted
Watson
the
without
that
Hilkey
only
addition to medication.
suggested
supportive
therapy
in
for
the
medication
competency.
Watson
misunderstood
Hilkeys
proper
consideration
argues
to
succeed
in
that
because
the
report,
to
the
the
district
evidence
12
restoring
district
court
contradicting
never
his
court
gave
Luckings
at
454
(finding
clear
error
where
district
court
argument,
Watson
points
to
Hilkeys
ignored
In support of
statement
that
any
to
Watson,
Hilkeys
view
that
supportive
this
statement
unequivocal[ly]
shows
[a]ny
treatment
must
in
manner.
Otherwise,
be
forcible
offered
medication
just
than
Watson
contends.
Regarding
supportive
therapy,
literature
[disorder]
strongly
on
treatment
encourages
of
the
persons
use
of
with
delusional
supportive
and
70
cognitive
behavioral
psychotherapy
for
the
treatment
of
could
be
sufficiently
restored.
Id.
(emphasis
added).
While it is apparent that Hilkey thought supportive therapy
was very important, the district court correctly observed that
Hilkey never directly stated that the proposed treatment plan of
medication without therapy would not work.
Indeed, Hilkeys
success
suggests
that
likelihood of success.
--
that
any
medication
alone
has
at
least
some
treatment
approach
be
it
pharmacological
or
supportive
approach
to
and
non-supportive
treatment,
medication
ways
or
to
administer
therapy.
either
Under
this
supportive
manner
does
not
amount
to
statement
that
Hilkeys
clear
report,
cannot
find
error
in
the
district
Anderson,
clearly
470
erroneous
evidence
is
U.S.
[i]f
plausible
entirety);
at
id.
the
in
at
573-74
district
light
579
(factual
of
findings
courts
the
are
not
account
of
the
viewed
in
its
record
(deferring
to
trial
courts
interpretation
do
of
not
believe
Hilkeys
that
report
is
the
district
clearly
courts
erroneous,
of
evidence
relating
to
supportive
therapy.
While
by
the
government
forcibly
administering
the
that
there
is
evidence
that
psychotherapy
is
J.A. 375.
government
and
the
defense
72
establishing
that
supportive
had
including
before
it
therapy
in
undisputed 13
Dr.
Hilkeys
the
treatment
plan
would
The court
opinion
that
increase
the
therapy
is
added
to
medication
plan
or
the
And
while the district court noted Luckings view that therapy alone
would
not
help
Watson,
the
court
did
not
explain
why
it
13
73
In
my
supportive
view,
the
therapy
evidence
is,
at
of
the
the
very
benefits
least,
of
adjunctive
relevant
to
the
factual question of whether the governments medication-withouttherapy plan was not merely likely, but substantially likely,
Sell, 539
U.S.
competency.
at
181
Given
(emphasis
the
added),
sensitive
to
nature
restore
of
an
Watsons
involuntary
interest
in
refusing
the
invasive
administration
of
over
the
medication-success-rates
in
the
limited
that
adjunctive
therapy
can
increase
treatment
give
explicit
therapy.
consideration
to
the
value
of
adjunctive
intrinsic
instead
be
the
biological
features
difficulties
in
of
the
convincing
illness,
these
but
patients
may
to
the
evidence,
otherwise.).
evidence
and
account
for
it,
when
concluding
when
determining
that
the
governments
plan
was
F.3d 265, 273 (4th Cir. 2012) (A court commits clear error when
it
makes
findings
without
properly
taking
into
account
turn
finding
district
the
now
the
question
governments
evidence
courts
proceedings.
to
order
without
of
remedy.
The
insufficient,
remanding
majority,
reverses
for
the
additional
an
error
by
the
district
court.
See
Pullman-
Standard v. Swint, 456 U.S. 273, 291-92 (1982) (noting that when
a district court fails to make required factual findings, a
remand is the proper course unless the record permits only one
resolution of the factual issue); aaiPharma Inc. v. Thompson,
296 F.3d 227, 235 (4th Cir. 2002) (noting, after finding error
by district court, that [o]rdinarily, the proper course would
be to vacate the district courts judgment and to remand, but
concluding that special circumstances allow us to put aside the
district courts procedural error and render a decision on the
merits (emphasis added)); see generally Chatmon, 718 F.3d at
376 (Because the district court erred in its analysis of the
third Sell factor, we vacate the involuntary medication order
and
remand
for
further
findings.);
76
Wooden,
693
F.3d
at
463
(vacating
and
remanding
for
reconsideration
after
identifying
this
case,
the
record
is
not
so
one-sided
that
it
Accordingly,
because
case
district
believe
courts
that
the
failure
to
only
error
address
in
the
this
issue
of
is
the
adjunctive
the
reasons
set
out
above,
believe
that
the
15
77
district
sponte.
court
on
an
issue
the
majority
has
raised
sua
by
the
reconsideration
appellant
of
the
was
the
district
vacating
courts
and
order.
remanding
for
Nonetheless,
review.
And
as
to
the
issues
actually
raised
by
16
for
reconsideration
and
additional
findings
by
the
district
decision
the
hereby
to
respectfully
reverse
governments
the
petition
to
dissent
district
from
courts
involuntarily
the
order
medicate
Watson.
79