LEGAL MEMORANDUM

Legal Memorandum

Question Presented

Our client, Jason Nelson has been charged with murder. Nelson is mentally ill and is currently imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital. Because of his mental illness, Nelson cannot help in his defense and therefore not entitled to judge .. Nelson opposed, to receive such drugs, primarily because it suffered a significant and debilitating side effects of drugs when he received them in the past. Medical experts have determined that Nelson about 20 per cent chance of being empowered, if he gets the treatment that the government intends to manage. Should it be administered drugs, referring to his medical history? \

Short answer

Number of the Court should have completely banned involuntary treatment of mentally ill prisoner with antipsychotic medication solely to render a competent defendant to trial. Man has the constitution of liberty interest in being free from any unwanted intrusions corporal who will dominate the state's interests in bringing defendant to trial. The decision was wrong because the defendant has a constitutionally guaranteed right to a fair trial, which undermines the coercive use of antipsychotic drugs because of their significant and harmful side effects.

Statement of Facts

Our client, Jason Nelson ("Nelson"), has been charged with murder. Nelson is mentally ill and is currently imprisoned in a psychiatric hospital. Because of his mental illness, Nelson cannot help in his defense and, therefore, is not competent to stand trial. The prosecutor in this case made a motion to ask the court to force the control of antipsychotics Nelson to give him beer before the court. Medical experts have determined that Nelson about 20 per cent chance of being empowered, if he gets the treatment that the government intends to manage. Nelson opposed, to receive such drugs, primarily because it suffered a significant and debilitating side effects of drugs when he received them in the past. Side effects include drowsiness, lethargy, and confusion. Nelson has never been a danger to himself or others.

Discussion

In Sell v. United States, the United States Supreme Court found that the Constitution allows the state administration of antipsychotic drugs involuntarily to a mentally ill defendant competent to assist the defendant to stand trial for nonviolent but serious crime, in limited cases(Elias 2009 ). Supreme Court considered whether the forced use of antipsychotic drugs to render a competent defendant before the court was constitutional, specifically whether the defendant was deprived of important "liberty" guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. The Court vacated the decision of the Eighth Circuit's decision upholding the district court allows the administration of antipsychotic drugs could not help mentally ill patients.

The present note criticizes the decision to sell in light of the precedent set forth in Harper) and Riggins(Quid2000 ). In addition, the sale of the crimes were not serious enough to justify the coercive use of antipsychotic drugs, assuming that the coercive use of drugs should be allowed at all. Finally, the dissent, Justice Scalia will be criticized for its failure to adhere to the doctrine of collateral order, and his narrow interpretation ...