Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Defendant Can Be Forced To Take Medication

[Croppled1]

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Defendant Can Be Forced to Take Medication

 

Published November 27, 2010

Associated Press

HARTFORD, Conn. -- The state Supreme Court ruled on Friday that possession of more than 8 pounds of marijuana is a serious enough charge to warrant forcing medication on a defendant so he is competent to stand trial.

 

The high court's 7-0 ruling came in the case of 30-year-old Christopher Seekins of Torrington, who authorities say has been ruled incompetent to stand trial because he refuses to take psychotropic medication for bipolar disorder. Justices upheld a lower court judge's order to medicate Seekins against his will.

 

State law says a defendant can be involuntarily medicated if the crime is serious enough and there is an overriding law enforcement interest in determining whether the defendant is innocent or guilty. Seekins argued that possessing marijuana isn't a serious crime.

 

Seekins' lawyer, Richard Marquette, declined to comment on the ruling Friday through an employee at his Hamden law firm.

 

Seekins also made headlines in 2005 when he painted large pictures of marijuana leaves on his Winsted home with the word "hemp" beneath them after being charged with growing marijuana, saying it was in support of legalizing the drug. He later agreed in a plea bargain to remove or cover up the paintings, which caused a ruckus in town because they were visible from busy Main Street.

 

Justice Richard Palmer, a former prosecutor, wrote in the Supreme Court's ruling that the basis for determining whether a crime is serious is the severity of the sentence it potentially carries. Palmer noted that Seekins faces a mandatory minimum sentence of seven years in prison if convicted of just three of the many charges he faces.

 

Palmer also wrote that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that forcing medication on a defendant to make him competent to stand trial is constitutional in certain circumstances. Federal Circuit Courts have also looked at potential penalties when determining whether crimes are serious, he wrote.

 

"The defendant is not charged merely with possession of marijuana; he is charged with manufacturing the drug and possessing it with the intent to sell," Palmer wrote. "In light of the quantity of marijuana involved ... we cannot conclude, as a matter of law, that the charges against the defendant are not serious."

 

Palmer also noted a U.S. Supreme Court decision saying society as a whole is a victim when illegal drugs are being distributed in its communities.

 

Seekins, who has been confined to a state psychiatric hospital in Middletown, had argued that the marijuana in the criminal case was for recreational purposes, not for sale or distribution.

 

In the 2005 marijuana case, Seekins pleaded guilty and was sentenced to three years probation in 2006.

 

In September 2007, Seekins' probation officer and Torrington police went to his home unannounced and said they found 8.4 pounds of pot, 50 marijuana plants, a digital scale and other pot paraphernalia.

 

He was later ruled incompetent to stand trial because of the effects of his bipolar disorder, but social workers testified that Seekins likely would be able to understand the charges against him and assist in his defense if he was treated with medication. Officials said Seekins refused to take medication.

 

It's not clear when state officials plan to begin forcing medication on Seekins. His drug case is expected to go back before a Bantam Superior Court judge on Tuesday.

 

Forcing a medication on someone who is reporting its hurting them or making them uncomfortable is the most despicable thing our Country can do . I am ashamed of this Courts actions and pray for this man . If this is not " cruel and unusual punishment " what is ? This is no more then two groups ( the courts and medical system ) fighting over his soul . Try him if they must but to do this is wrong ! This case is a perfect example of why education on jury nulification needs to be ongoing and why that right must be protected as a balance of power .Shame on the State and People of Connecticut . He is a threat to nothing but the status quo !

 

 

STATE v. CHRISTOPHER SEEKINS, SC 18467

 

Judicial District of Litchfield at G.A. 18

 

 

 

Criminal; Mental Competency; Whether Trial Court Properly Ordered Defendant who was Facing Charge of Sale of Illegal Drugs to be Forcibly Medicated to Restore Competency to Stand Trial. After police officers discovered about fifty marijuana plants and over eight pounds of marijuana at the defendant's home, the defendant was charged with several drug offenses, including the sale of illegal drugs and possession with intent to sell. Following a series of competency hearings, the trial court ordered that the defendant be forcibly medicated to render him competent to stand trial. Under General Statutes § 54-56d (k) (2), the trial court may authorize the involuntary medication of a defendant if it makes certain findings under a clear and convincing evidence standard. One of the findings the court must make is that "the seriousness of the alleged crime is such that the criminal law enforcement interest of the state in fairly and accurately determining the defendant's guilt or innocence overrides the defendant's interest in self-determination." On appeal, the defendant contends that the court improperly found that the seriousness of the crimes was such that the state's interest in prosecuting him outweighed his liberty interest in being free from being forcibly medicated. He asserts that the crimes he is charged with are not of a serious nature because his recreational use of marijuana does not pose a danger to himself or to society. The defendant further argues that the order to administer psychiatric medication violates his right to freedom of religion.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/11/27/connecticut-supreme-court-rules-defendant-forced-medication/

 

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/26225/debate_over_hemp_leaf_grows_in_connecticut.html?cat=9

 

http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring03/forcedmedication.html

 

http://hightimes.com/news/dan/3560

 

http://www.timesunion.com/default/article/Town-It-s-OK-to-paint-pot-on-your-house-94328.php

 

http://www.newstimes.com/default/article/No-prison-but-paint-job-in-marijuana-case-118529.php

 

http://www.countytimes.com/articles/2010/05/07/news/doc4be2d908d5902088222181.txt?viewmode=fullstory

 

Connecticut has no referendum process to put Medical Cannabis on the ballot . Obviously this man more then quailifies for it . Pain takes many forms .