Law.com has this article from the New Jersey Law Journal regarding a case in which a judge has ruled against forcibly medicating a defendant in order to render him competent to stand trial ("Defendant Can't Be Forced to Take Drug to Make Him Fit for Trial, Judge Rules", 11-12-2008).
This case raises interesting questions as to how the system should handle a defendant who has been indicted but whose mental illness makes it unlikely that he will be able to stand trial any time soon, if ever. Similar questions emerge in the case of death row inmates who have been deemed incompetent to be executed and are not being forcibly medicated (or for whom medication has not restored competency). These inmates remain in legal limbo, where the state is neither seeking their execution nor moving to commute the sentence.
Here's the article in full:
"Federal authorities can't force a mentally ill bank robbery suspect to take an anti-psychotic drug that could make him competent to stand trial, because the side effects might be harmful, a federal judge in Camden, N.J., has ruled.
Prosecutors argued that injections of Haldol had an excellent chance of making paranoid, hallucinating, delusional suspect Wayne Moruzin fit for prosecution on charges he held up a Westville, N.J., bank in 2005.
But Moruzin objected to taking the injections and U.S. District Judge Jerome Simandle ruled on Oct. 30 that there was insufficient evidence that the suspect would respond to the treatment and a chance that his health would be undermined by side effects. Moruzin has a history of drug abuse and hepatitis.
The government failed to establish that the proposed treatment 'is medically appropriate, is substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial, and, taking into account less intrusive alternatives, is necessary significantly to further important government trial-related interests,' Simandle ruled in U.S. v. Moruzin, cr-05-306.
While the ruling makes no new law, the case is unusual because the authorities have determined that Moruzin does not pose a danger to himself or others. In those cases, it's easier for the government to win the right to administer the drugs by arguing medical necessity.
The U.S. Attorney's Office does have the right to seek civil commitment in hopes Moruzin's condition will improve, but government doctors have testified that competency is not likely to occur without the anti-psychotic drugs that Moruzin refuses to take.
And because Moruzin could be sentenced to up to 30 years if convicted, a very long time would pass before a judge could release him on grounds he had served the equivalent of what a sentence would have been.
'The question becomes, what do they do with the indictment?' asks defense lawyer Mark Catanzaro, who has a firm in Moorestown, N.J. 'If he refuses to take the medicine he is not likely to return to competence. They are not obligated to dismiss the indictment right now but I don't know how long they can keep it open. I can't imagine five years from now there would still be an open indictment hanging out there.'
'It may not be a legal matter, but a practical matter,' Catanzaro says. 'Judge Simandle calls up and screams at [the prosecutors] and says, get this thing off my docket.'
Assistant U.S. Attorney Norman Gross did not return a call on Thursday.
In January 2007, U.S. District Judge Joel Pisano made the same ruling and dismissed the indictment in U.S. v. McCray, cr-04-493, a case involving a mentally ill bank robber. But he did so knowing it wasn't a get-out-of-jail free card for defendant Kevin McCray, who had already pleaded guilty to three bank jobs in Delaware and was serving a 36-year sentence in state prison.
Moruzin was arrested on Sept. 16, 2004, the day after he allegedly walked into the First Colonial National Bank, fired a shot from a chrome-colored gun and fled with $11,588.
Employees said they recognized him because he was a former customer. When police chased him down the next day they said they found some of the money, but not all of it. He admitted to eating a $50 bill, 'and requested a glass of water to help digest same,' the FBI complaint said.
A jury tampering charge was added to the indictment in 2005, after authorities intercepted a letter in which Moruzin suggested to a woman that she appear at his upcoming jury selection and inform potential jurors that he had been set up.
Simandle granted Moruzin the right to represent himself at trial, but the defendant's behavior suggested he might be suffering from a mental defect and Simandle ordered a hearing into whether Moruzin was competent to stand trial.
He wasn't. Based on medical evidence that Moruzin was paranoid and delusional, Simandle wrote in October 2006, 'he presently seems to be unable to have constructive dialogue about this case or his defense due to his hostility and paranoia, and there is little doubt that his unfounded mistrust of his attorney and his attorney's motives hampers his attorney-client relationship.'
Doctors who evaluated Moruzin for the government recommended that the judge order the involuntary administration of anti-psychotic drugs, which would be the normal treatment for anyone with the defendant's condition and had a chance of making him competent to stand trial.
The drug of choice was Haldol by injection twice a month and then once a month.
The courts have given medical personnel the right to order such treatment if the patient is a threat to himself or others, but that wasn't the case with Moruzin.
His situation was covered by Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that says defendants have a constitutional right to avoid involuntary administration of anti-psychotic drugs but can be forced to comply if the government satisfies a series of legal tests.
Simandle ruled that the government flunked all the tests, starting with the one that gives the prosecution the benefit of the doubt when a crime is particularly serious.
Simandle ruled that although Moruzin is exposed to a possible sentence of 30 years, the strong likelihood of the alternative -- a civil commitment -- would undermine the need for a prosecution, he ruled.
Second, he ruled that there was insufficient evidence that Haldol would restore competency to Moruzin, who has been a drug abuser for 40 years and has been mentally ill for at least 32 years.
What's more, the side effects experienced by many patients, including pseudo-Parkinson's-type physical movements, grimacing, tongue protrusion and lip smacking, could make Moruzin's courtroom demeanor prejudicial, the judge ruled.
Third, the government hadn't proved that alternative treatments, including psychotherapy, were possible.
And finally, the government hadn't proven that Haldol was the appropriate treatment for Moruzin's illness, given the dangers of side effects, he ruled."
http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202425954334
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
OpEd: Mental illness must be in consideration
Here's an OpEd from George Haley, a mental health advocate in Tennessee, in which he offers his perspective as to why the death penalty is inappropriate for offenders with severe mental illness. This appeared on October 16, 2008 in The Tennessean: http://www.tennessean.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081016/OPINION01/810160338/1008.
In 2007, the Tennessee General Assembly created a committee to examine Tennessee's death penalty system for fairness and accuracy. The committee will conclude its work in December 2008, issuing its recommendations to the legislature in January 2009.
Thus far, the committee has highlighted a number of serious problems, including the lack of adequate defense services for those charged with capital murder, the failure to collect and analyze critical information about death penalty trials and appeals, the lack of accurate information concerning the cost of the death penalty to taxpayers, as well as the number of inmates with severe mental illness on Tennessee's death row.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Atkins v. Virginia decision held that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute defendants with mental retardation. In making this decision the court determined that the disabilities of those with mental retardation "do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability." Tennessee was one of 18 states that had already banned the death sentence for those with mental retardation prior to the Supreme Court decision.
Mentally ill not culpable
Currently, defendants diagnosed with severe mental illness are still eligible for the death penalty in Tennessee, even though the most severely mentally ill- those suffering from delusions, hallucinations, or significant disruptions of consciousness - are no more culpable than those with mental retardation. Though mental illness is a significant problem in our nation's prisons, only a small percentage of death row inmates suffered from the most severe mental illness at the time their crimes were committed.
Exempting the most seriously ill inmates from the death penalty does not exempt them from other penalties, such as life without parole or a life sentence. But, such an exemption does allow for a quicker resolution for victims' families while reducing the costs of lengthy appeals and providing a more humane approach toward those who are most ill.
In Tennessee, Richard Taylor was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of a correctional officer - a crime committed only after prison officials stopped giving Taylor his anti-psychotic medication.
Over the next 20 years, Taylor stood trial twice despite his severe mental illness. Finally, in March 2008, Taylor's sentence was reversed by a Tennessee appeals court after he agreed to a life sentence in exchange for pleading guilty. Imagine the years of suffering for the victim's family and costs that could have been avoided if Taylor was ineligible for a death sentence and instead received a life sentence from the start. The state spent millions of dollars to seek death for a man who ultimately received a life sentence anyway. Regardless of one's feelings about the death penalty, Tennessee cannot afford to allow the execution of those with severe mental illness when less costly alternatives are available.
George Haley has served as president of NAMI-TN; chairman of the board oftrustees of Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute; chairman of the board ofdirectors of Park Center, a psycho-social rehabilitation center; and a memberof the Board of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign.
In 2007, the Tennessee General Assembly created a committee to examine Tennessee's death penalty system for fairness and accuracy. The committee will conclude its work in December 2008, issuing its recommendations to the legislature in January 2009.
Thus far, the committee has highlighted a number of serious problems, including the lack of adequate defense services for those charged with capital murder, the failure to collect and analyze critical information about death penalty trials and appeals, the lack of accurate information concerning the cost of the death penalty to taxpayers, as well as the number of inmates with severe mental illness on Tennessee's death row.
In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in the Atkins v. Virginia decision held that it is a violation of the Eighth Amendment's ban on cruel and unusual punishment to execute defendants with mental retardation. In making this decision the court determined that the disabilities of those with mental retardation "do not warrant an exemption from criminal sanctions, but diminish their personal culpability." Tennessee was one of 18 states that had already banned the death sentence for those with mental retardation prior to the Supreme Court decision.
Mentally ill not culpable
Currently, defendants diagnosed with severe mental illness are still eligible for the death penalty in Tennessee, even though the most severely mentally ill- those suffering from delusions, hallucinations, or significant disruptions of consciousness - are no more culpable than those with mental retardation. Though mental illness is a significant problem in our nation's prisons, only a small percentage of death row inmates suffered from the most severe mental illness at the time their crimes were committed.
Exempting the most seriously ill inmates from the death penalty does not exempt them from other penalties, such as life without parole or a life sentence. But, such an exemption does allow for a quicker resolution for victims' families while reducing the costs of lengthy appeals and providing a more humane approach toward those who are most ill.
In Tennessee, Richard Taylor was convicted and sentenced to death for the 1981 murder of a correctional officer - a crime committed only after prison officials stopped giving Taylor his anti-psychotic medication.
Over the next 20 years, Taylor stood trial twice despite his severe mental illness. Finally, in March 2008, Taylor's sentence was reversed by a Tennessee appeals court after he agreed to a life sentence in exchange for pleading guilty. Imagine the years of suffering for the victim's family and costs that could have been avoided if Taylor was ineligible for a death sentence and instead received a life sentence from the start. The state spent millions of dollars to seek death for a man who ultimately received a life sentence anyway. Regardless of one's feelings about the death penalty, Tennessee cannot afford to allow the execution of those with severe mental illness when less costly alternatives are available.
George Haley has served as president of NAMI-TN; chairman of the board oftrustees of Middle Tennessee Mental Health Institute; chairman of the board ofdirectors of Park Center, a psycho-social rehabilitation center; and a memberof the Board of the Tennessee Health Care Campaign.
Monday, October 20, 2008
Free Webinar: Law Enforcement and People with Mental Illnesses
On Tuesday, October 28, the Council of State Governments Justice Center, with support from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice, will sponsor a one-hour webinar during which "national experts in law enforcement and mental health will discuss effective crisis response models. They will outline how community behavioral health care providers and law enforcement can collaborate and tailor responses to the problems of their jurisdiction. The webinar spotlights Improving Responses to People with Mental Illnesses: The Essential Elements of a Specialized Law Enforcement-Based Program, a report supported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice. Written by the Council of State Governments Justice Center and the Police Executive Research Forum, it highlights 10 key components for improving officers' encounters with individuals with mental illnesses."
Presenters include Captain Richard Wall, Los Angeles Police Department; Fred Osher, M.D., Director of Health Systems and Services Policy, CSG Justice Center; and Melissa Reuland, Senior Research Consultant, Police Executive Research Forum.
Registration is free but is limited to the first 1,000 people. To register, go to http://www2.eventsvc.com/nationalcouncil/, select the law enforcement/mental health event, and enter the coupon code COUNCIL at checkout.
If you are registering for a webinar for the first time, create a profile with the email and password of your choice. A confirmation with webinar access information will be sent to the email address you enter.
Participation will require Internet access and a phone line. Participants from the same location are encouraged to use a single phone line - one individual may register and get access information for the whole group.
Contact Communications@thenationalcouncil or call 301.984.6200 with questions.
For more information, go to http://consensusproject.org/updates/announcements-and-events/Oct2008/webinaroct08.
Presenters include Captain Richard Wall, Los Angeles Police Department; Fred Osher, M.D., Director of Health Systems and Services Policy, CSG Justice Center; and Melissa Reuland, Senior Research Consultant, Police Executive Research Forum.
Registration is free but is limited to the first 1,000 people. To register, go to http://www2.eventsvc.com/nationalcouncil/, select the law enforcement/mental health event, and enter the coupon code COUNCIL at checkout.
If you are registering for a webinar for the first time, create a profile with the email and password of your choice. A confirmation with webinar access information will be sent to the email address you enter.
Participation will require Internet access and a phone line. Participants from the same location are encouraged to use a single phone line - one individual may register and get access information for the whole group.
Contact Communications@thenationalcouncil or call 301.984.6200 with questions.
For more information, go to http://consensusproject.org/updates/announcements-and-events/Oct2008/webinaroct08.
Candidates for Harris County District Attorney Address Issue of Mental Illness
On November 4, voters in Harris County will elect a new district attorney. In an article that appeared in the Houston Chronicle ("Race for DA puts justice system on trial," October 12, 2008), candidates C.O. Bradford and Pat Lykos expressed interest in reform, with a particular emphasis on addressing the needs of inmates with mental illness. Here are excerpts:
"Harris County voters looking for a district attorney candidate with a 'tough on crime' theme are out of luck this fall.
The situation is a startling departure from the law-and-order tone set for the last 30 years by Republican former district attorneys John B. Holmes Jr. and Chuck Rosenthal.
But Rosenthal resigned in disgrace early this year, opening the door for Democratic candidate C.O. Bradford and Republican candidate Pat Lykos, former police officers who have never prosecuted a criminal case, to put the local justice system on trial instead.
Bradford, the former Houston police chief, and Lykos, a former felony court judge, make sure to mention, in a county known nationwide for its frequent use of the death penalty, that the worst criminal offenders should be prosecuted to the hilt. But, despite substantive differences between the contenders, they both put greater emphasis on reforming the system so that many minor offenders get drug or mental illness treatment rather than a cell in the already crowded jail.
'Simply locking everybody up for everything isn't going to get us out of the process we are in now,' Bradford said. 'Our taxes are high, the jails are full and crime continues to go up. So let's exercise good stewardship of fiscal resources, reduce crime and understand that most people who commit offenses are salvageable, they can be rehabilitated, but they must be given realistic opportunities to reintegrate back into our society.
'That's not occurring and there are a number of reasons for that ... There are a lot of people who make a lot of money, billions of dollars, designing, building, constructing (prisons) and there's not a concern about whether you are guilty or innocent. They get paid to keep a warm body there. That's not justice.'
Lykos called this 'a critical period in our county. We have a tarnished law enforcement system. It is bad for justice, it is bad for public safety and it's bad for business. I pledge to you to restore public trust and confidence in the district attorney's office.'" ...
The article reports that "As chief, Bradford upgraded the domestic violence unit and established a crisis intervention team for encounters with mentally ill suspects. Coincidentally Lykos, who would be the county's first female DA, aimed many of her creative sentencing approaches at healing family strife and getting treatment for mentally ill inmates."
Read the full article.
"Harris County voters looking for a district attorney candidate with a 'tough on crime' theme are out of luck this fall.
The situation is a startling departure from the law-and-order tone set for the last 30 years by Republican former district attorneys John B. Holmes Jr. and Chuck Rosenthal.
But Rosenthal resigned in disgrace early this year, opening the door for Democratic candidate C.O. Bradford and Republican candidate Pat Lykos, former police officers who have never prosecuted a criminal case, to put the local justice system on trial instead.
Bradford, the former Houston police chief, and Lykos, a former felony court judge, make sure to mention, in a county known nationwide for its frequent use of the death penalty, that the worst criminal offenders should be prosecuted to the hilt. But, despite substantive differences between the contenders, they both put greater emphasis on reforming the system so that many minor offenders get drug or mental illness treatment rather than a cell in the already crowded jail.
'Simply locking everybody up for everything isn't going to get us out of the process we are in now,' Bradford said. 'Our taxes are high, the jails are full and crime continues to go up. So let's exercise good stewardship of fiscal resources, reduce crime and understand that most people who commit offenses are salvageable, they can be rehabilitated, but they must be given realistic opportunities to reintegrate back into our society.
'That's not occurring and there are a number of reasons for that ... There are a lot of people who make a lot of money, billions of dollars, designing, building, constructing (prisons) and there's not a concern about whether you are guilty or innocent. They get paid to keep a warm body there. That's not justice.'
Lykos called this 'a critical period in our county. We have a tarnished law enforcement system. It is bad for justice, it is bad for public safety and it's bad for business. I pledge to you to restore public trust and confidence in the district attorney's office.'" ...
The article reports that "As chief, Bradford upgraded the domestic violence unit and established a crisis intervention team for encounters with mentally ill suspects. Coincidentally Lykos, who would be the county's first female DA, aimed many of her creative sentencing approaches at healing family strife and getting treatment for mentally ill inmates."
Read the full article.
New Resources for Victims of Crimes Committed by People with Mental Illness
Last month, the Council of State Governments Justice Center published two guides on the rights of individuals who have been victimized by people with mental illnesses - the first ever national publications on this topic. Both were supported by the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC), Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
The first, Responding to People Who Have Been Victimized by Individuals with Mental Illnesses, details steps policymakers, advocates, and mental health professionals can take to understand and protect the rights and safety of these crime victims. It reflects the views of forensic directors, prosecutors, victim advocates, and victims of crimes committed by people with mental illnesses. The guide describes current policies and practices used in selected jurisdictions to respond to this group of victims, outlines barriers to upholding victims’ rights in such cases, and highlights action items for communities to consider.
The second report, A Guide to the Role of Crime Victims in Mental Health Courts, offers practical recommendations to mental health court practitioners about how to engage crime victims in case proceedings.
Go to http://justicecenter.csg.org/media/press_releases to read the full press releases for each guide.
Learn more and download both resources at http://consensusproject.org/issue-areas/victims/vpmi/. Hard copies can be ordered while supplies last through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at www.ncjrs.gov (NCJ 223345).
The first, Responding to People Who Have Been Victimized by Individuals with Mental Illnesses, details steps policymakers, advocates, and mental health professionals can take to understand and protect the rights and safety of these crime victims. It reflects the views of forensic directors, prosecutors, victim advocates, and victims of crimes committed by people with mental illnesses. The guide describes current policies and practices used in selected jurisdictions to respond to this group of victims, outlines barriers to upholding victims’ rights in such cases, and highlights action items for communities to consider.
The second report, A Guide to the Role of Crime Victims in Mental Health Courts, offers practical recommendations to mental health court practitioners about how to engage crime victims in case proceedings.
Go to http://justicecenter.csg.org/media/press_releases to read the full press releases for each guide.
Learn more and download both resources at http://consensusproject.org/issue-areas/victims/vpmi/. Hard copies can be ordered while supplies last through the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at www.ncjrs.gov (NCJ 223345).
Families Affected by Mental Illness and the Death Penalty Gather in San Antonio
On Friday, October 3, the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and Murder Victims' Families for Human Rights (MVFHR) launched a groundbreaking new project, Prevention Not Execution (sound familiar?!), which brings together victims' families and families of the executed, all of whom had been affected by mental illness, murder, and the death penalty.
After a private gathering involving the participants, who travelled from Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and elsewhere in Texas, the organizations held a press conference that featured Nick and Amanda Wilcox, Lois Robison, Kim Crespi, and Bill Babbitt. Ed Dickey, the head of NAMI San Antonio, and Ron Honberg, the Legal and Policy Director of NAMI, also spoke about this collaborative effort from the perspective of the nation's leading mental health advocacy organization.
The press conference included a powerful ceremony during which all of the participants placed a rose in a vase and lit a candle in remembrance of their loved ones, the victims' of these crimes, and the perpetrators.
You can view photos from the event and read the moving statements of each speaker at http://mvfhr.blogspot.com/.
In addition, WITNESS, a global human rights organization that uses video and online technologies to open the eyes of the world to human rights violations, is featuring online video from the event launch. The video appears on the home page of The HUB, the first global platform dedicated to human rights media and action. It includes portions of statements by Nick and Amanda Wilcox, Kim Crespi, and Bill Babbitt, as well as a portion of the remembrance ceremony that concluded the event. Here is the link to the video: http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8928 (you might need to install flash to view the content).
***
MVFHR will be conducting interviews with other family members who were not able to attend the San Antonio event and will release a report on this effort next summer.
After a private gathering involving the participants, who travelled from Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, North Carolina, California, Maine, Massachusetts, and elsewhere in Texas, the organizations held a press conference that featured Nick and Amanda Wilcox, Lois Robison, Kim Crespi, and Bill Babbitt. Ed Dickey, the head of NAMI San Antonio, and Ron Honberg, the Legal and Policy Director of NAMI, also spoke about this collaborative effort from the perspective of the nation's leading mental health advocacy organization.
The press conference included a powerful ceremony during which all of the participants placed a rose in a vase and lit a candle in remembrance of their loved ones, the victims' of these crimes, and the perpetrators.
You can view photos from the event and read the moving statements of each speaker at http://mvfhr.blogspot.com/.
In addition, WITNESS, a global human rights organization that uses video and online technologies to open the eyes of the world to human rights violations, is featuring online video from the event launch. The video appears on the home page of The HUB, the first global platform dedicated to human rights media and action. It includes portions of statements by Nick and Amanda Wilcox, Kim Crespi, and Bill Babbitt, as well as a portion of the remembrance ceremony that concluded the event. Here is the link to the video: http://hub.witness.org/en/node/8928 (you might need to install flash to view the content).
***
MVFHR will be conducting interviews with other family members who were not able to attend the San Antonio event and will release a report on this effort next summer.
Message to PNP Readers
Dear Prevention Not Punishment Readers,
Thank you so much for supporting this blog over the last year and a half. I apologize that my postings have been rather sparse these last couple of months.
My Soros Justice Fellowship officially ended on September 1, 2008, which means that I no longer am focusing exclusively on issues related to mental illness and the death penalty. While I now have less time to devote to the blog than I would like, I aim to do my best to maintain it with up-to-date information. The following postings capture some *recent* developments on these important issues.
As always, your comments and ideas for future postings are much appreciated.
-Kristin
Thank you so much for supporting this blog over the last year and a half. I apologize that my postings have been rather sparse these last couple of months.
My Soros Justice Fellowship officially ended on September 1, 2008, which means that I no longer am focusing exclusively on issues related to mental illness and the death penalty. While I now have less time to devote to the blog than I would like, I aim to do my best to maintain it with up-to-date information. The following postings capture some *recent* developments on these important issues.
As always, your comments and ideas for future postings are much appreciated.
-Kristin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)