U.S. v. Green

Citation532 F.3d 538
Decision Date16 July 2008
Docket NumberNo. 06-6186.,06-6186.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cuterris GREEN, Defendant-Appellant.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)

ARGUED: Caryll S. Alpert, Federal Public Defender's Office, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. David Rivera, Assistant United States Attorney, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Caryll S. Alpert, Michael C. Holley, Federal Public Defender's Office, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellant. David Rivera, Assistant United States Attorney, Nashville, Tennessee, for Appellee.

Before: KEITH and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.*

VAN TATENHOVE, D.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which GRIFFIN, J., joined. KEITH, J. (pp. 558-62), delivered a separate dissenting opinion.

OPINION

VAN TATENHOVE, District Judge.

Cuterris Green, a pretrial detainee, objects to the involuntary administration of psychotropic drugs to render him competent to stand trial. We review the district court's consideration of whether the government's interest in prosecution outweighs Mr. Green's constitutional right to refuse intervention. Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 123 S.Ct. 2174, 156 L.Ed.2d 197 (2003). Because we conclude that it does, we affirm the district court's decision and find that medications properly may be administered to restore Mr. Green's competency.1

I.

Cuterris Green ("Green") was charged in a five-count indictment for the following drug-related activities: (1) possession with intent to distribute approximately 29.6 grams of marijuana in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (2) possession with intent to distribute approximately 1.8 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (3) possession with intent to distribute approximately 1.7 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); (4) possession with intent to distribute approximately 1.6 grams of cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1); and (5) possession with intent to distribute approximately 50 grams of cocaine base, approximately 168 grams of cocaine, and approximately 140 grams of marijuana, all in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. In addition to the counts charged, the indictment also contained two Sentencing Allegations: first, that Green possessed with the intent to distribute between 150 and 500 grams of cocaine base, and second, that Green possessed a dangerous weapon during the commission of the offense.

The charges in the indictment arise from activity occurring between April 28, 2004 and May 7, 2004, during which time Green sold illegal drugs to an undercover law enforcement officer. After the final sale, law enforcement officials followed Green and conducted a traffic stop where they found a small amount of the drugs. Simultaneously, officials executed a search of Green's residence where they found a larger amount of crack cocaine and a loaded "Tech 9" semi-automatic firearm, along with several empty magazines in a bedroom drawer.

Green was arrested, and temporarily detained pending arraignment and a hearing on the government's motion for detention. The next day, Green was arraigned, followed by the detention hearing. The Magistrate Judge, noting Green's prior convictions, which included the assault of his mother, as well as the serious nature of the federal charges and potential penalties he faced, concluded that Green had not overcome the rebuttable presumption of detention and that he posed a "substantial risk of danger to the community." Accordingly, Green was detained pending trial.

As part of the pretrial proceedings,2 Green moved for a determination of mental competency pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 4241(a). The United States similarly moved, and the district court conducted a hearing at which it determined that Green may be suffering from a "mental defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense." Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §§ 4241 and 4247, and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2(c), the district court ordered that Green be committed to the custody of the Attorney General for a determination of his mental competency, and that a report be filed outlining the result of the mental examination. Green was transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Lexington, Kentucky ("FMC Lexington"), where an April 13, 2005 Forensic Report concluded that he was incompetent to stand trial. Specifically, the evaluation concluded that Green suffered from Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified. In her written evaluation, Dr. Betsy Campbell concluded:

Mr. Green is currently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to properly assist in his defense. Therefore, it is the opinion of the undersigned evaluator he is not currently competent to stand trial.

Although Green was not combative or otherwise disruptive during his evaluation, he denied any history of mental illness and refused to accept any treatment in spite of clear and indisputable evidence to the contrary.

For example, Green's mother advised the evaluators that he had suffered from mental illness for some time. In fact, his mental illness affected his ability to maintain stable employment and Green had received disability benefits for psychiatric problems. Id. The FMC Lexington possessed evidence that Green "hears voices," demonstrates "compulsive" behaviors, paranoia, delusions, and hallucinations. Likewise, the medical records from the Mental Health Co-Op confirmed these general factual observations and medical conclusions regarding Green's mental status. Accordingly, Drs. Campbell and Helvey recommended commitment to a BOP inpatient treatment facility. They advised that involuntary medication would likely be required to restore Green's competency "[b]ecause of his difficulty acknowledging his mental illness, accepting his need for treatment, and complying with treatment when offered."

Relying on the Forensic Report from FMC Lexington, both the government and counsel for the Defendant agreed that Green was incompetent. Consequently, and after conducting a hearing, the district court specifically determined the same, and held that Green was "presently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent that he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to assist properly in his defense." Accordingly, the trial court committed Green to the custody of the Attorney General for a four-month period to determine whether he could attain the mental capacity to proceed to trial, and noted that, given Green's refusal to voluntarily medicate himself, any further requests regarding involuntary medical treatment should be made to the district court in writing.

At that point, Green was transferred to the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, New York ("FMC Rochester") for continued evaluation, appropriate treatment, and a medical determination regarding his ability to attain sufficient competency to stand trial. The FMC Rochester completed its evaluation and provided it to the district court on January 3, 2006. Green was even more uncooperative during his time at FMC Rochester than at FMC Lexington in that he refused to discuss his legal case, denied any history of mental illness, refused any medical treatment or to participate in any testing, and appeared generally confused and disoriented. Ultimately, those physicians also concluded that Green suffers from Psychotic Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (NOS) and Rule Out Malingering. In addition, the evaluation noted the existence of Green's non-insulin dependent Diabetes Mellitus. The examiners at FMC Rochester, including Dr. Andrew Simcox, reached competency conclusions similar to those reached by the physicians at FMC Lexington:

Mr. Green is currently suffering from a mental disease or defect rendering him mentally incompetent to the extent he is unable to understand the nature and consequences of the proceedings against him or to properly assist in his defense. Furthermore, we believe there is a substantial probability he will attain the capacity to permit the trial to proceed in the forseeable future if he receives appropriate mental health care. It appears clear the administration of such care would need to be court ordered, as Mr. Green has consistently declined to consent to such treatment.

In addition to the above-outlined diagnosis, the FMC Rochester report considered the propriety of involuntary medication in light of the Sell factors. Ultimately, the examiners concluded that Green's quality of life would benefit greatly from involuntary medication beyond simply restoring his capacity to stand trial, particularly given his past positive response to similar treatment, and noted that any side effects from such treatment were unlikely to interfere with his defense. The report went on to note that his mental status would not likely improve absent the imposition of medication and that no less intrusive means available would achieve the same result. The United States then requested that the district court order involuntary medication to restore Green's mental competency to stand trial. Green opposed the motion, and both the government and Green filed memoranda in support of their respective positions. Ultimately, on August 18, 2006, the district court conducted a hearing at which it determined that Green should be involuntarily medicated to restore his competency.3

At the hearing, the district court heard extensive testimony on behalf of the government from two physicians from FMC Rochester, Dr. Andrew Simcox and Dr Donna Christine Sigurdson. In addition, Dr. John Griffin, a private psychologist, provided...

To continue reading

Request your trial
93 cases
  • Thompson v. Bell, 06-5744.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • September 11, 2009
    ...... him if he stopped taking his medication voluntarily, those are not the facts he presents to us. Thompson's argument that his medication is involuntary because he is addicted to the drugs may be ... See, e.g., United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538, 545 & n. 5 (6th Cir.2008). .         Additionally, states are ......
  • United States v. Loughner
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • March 5, 2012
    ......The appeal from that order is before us as No. 11–10339. In the interim, Loughner was involuntarily medicated on an emergency basis ... Green, 532 F.3d 538, 545 n. 5 (6th Cir.2008) ( “The Sell standard applies when the forced medication ......
  • United States v. Watson, 14–4388.
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (4th Circuit)
    • July 17, 2015
    ......Green, 532 F.3d 538, 545 (6th Cir.2008) (applying clear and convincing standard); United States v. ...We further conclude that on the record before us, that exacting standard cannot be met. B. Under the second prong of Sell , the government must ......
  • State v. Holden, W11D–CR13–0151132–S.
    • United States
    • Superior Court of Connecticut
    • December 2, 2014
    ...of the legislative branch as reflective of societal attitudes." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., quoting United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538, 549 (6th Cir.2008), cert. denied, 556 U.S. 1270, 129 S.Ct. 2735, 174 L.Ed.2d 250 (2009) ; see also State v. Tucker, 219 Conn. 752, 759, 595 ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • United States v. Diaz: the Gap Between Medication and Restoration - Bryson Mccollum
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 63-4, June 2012
    • Invalid date
    ...Treatment Outcome for Incompetent Defendants, 22 Bull. Am. Acad. Psychiatry & L. 367, 368 (1994). 147. See, e.g., United States v. Green, 532 F.3d 538, 552 (6th Cir. 2008); United States v. Bradley, 417 F.3d 1107, 1115 (10th Cir. 2005); United States v. Gomes, 387 F.3d 157, 161-62 (2d Cir. ......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT