Riggins v. Nevada
Litigants=Riggins v. Nevada
Prior=Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada
Holding=The forcible medication of the petitioner on trial violated his rights guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
JoinMajority=Rehnquist, White, Blackmun, Stevens and Souter
LawsApplied=Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments
"Riggins v. Nevada", ussc|504|127|1992 is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take
antipsychotic medicationwhile he is on trialto allow the state to make sure he remains competent during the trial. [cite web
title=Riggins v. Nevada
publisher=Cornell University Law School
David Riggins went to the
Nevadaapartment of a man, Wade, who was later found stabbed to death. Approximately two days later, Riggins was arrested for the capital murderand robberyof Wade. After his arrest he complained of hearing voices and sleeplessness, telling the jail psychiatrist that he had taken Mellarilin the past. The psychiatrist prescribed him increasing doses of Mellaril at Riggins' request, until Riggins was taking 800 milligrams a day, considered a very high dose of that medication.cite web
author=Robert G. Meyer
title=Law and Mental Health: A Case-Based Approach
Riggins was evaluated and found competent to stand trial, with one of the three evaluating psychiatrists dissenting. Riggins stated he planned to present an
insanity defenseand requested that the Mellaril be discontinued until after the trial so that the jurywould see his mental state first hand rather than be given a false impression induced by the medication, which would deny him due process. The court heard testimonyfrom three psychiatrists with differing opinions and then gave a one page decision denying Riggins' request but giving no rationale for the denial. Riggins testified on his own behalf during the trial, claiming that Wade was trying to kill him and that voices in his head told him that killing Wade was justified as self defense. The jury found Riggins guilty of murder and robbery with a deadly weapon, and sentenced him to death.cite web
title=David Riggins, Petitioner v. Nevada - Certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nevada]
publisher=New York Times - FindLaw
Riggins appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court on the grounds that forced administration of Mellaril denied him the ability to assist in his own defense and gave a false impression of his attitude, appearance, and demeanor at trial. [cite web
title=Riggins v. Nevada - Syllabus
accessdate=2007-12-23] Riggins claimed that the forced medication was not justified, as the State had not demonstrated a need to administer Mellaril nor did it explore less restrictive alternatives to giving him 800 milligrams of the drug each day. However, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed Riggins' convictions and death sentence. Riggins then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that forced administration of antipsychotic medication during Riggins' trial violated his rights guaranteed under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.cite web
title=Riggins v. Nevada - U.S. Supreme Court
publisher=PubMed - West's Supreme Court Report
accessdate=2007-12-21] A seven-member majority held that the state did not show that antipsychotic medication was medically appropriate and did not demonstrate that it considered less intrusive means in obtaining its goal of trying Riggins. [cite web
title=Riggins v. Nevada - Opinion of the Court
The Court stated that Riggins' Eighth Amendment argument that the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication denied him the chance to show the jury his true mental state at the sentencing hearing was not raised in the petition for certiorari and therefore was not addressed by the court.
The Court held, by a seven person majority, that a person awaiting trial has a valid reason, protected under the
due processclause, to refuse antipsychotic drugs, see Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 and Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U.S. 520, 545. Therefore, once Riggins' requested termination of the medication, the State was obligated to establish both the need for the antipsychotic drug and its medical appropriateness for Riggins' safety and that of others as the less restrictive alternative available. If the state had done this, due process would have been satisfied. The State might have been able to justify the treatment, if medically appropriate, if it set forth that the adjudication of guilt or innocence could not be established by using less intrusive means. Since the trial court did not do this and allowed the drug's administration to continue without making any of the determinations stated above, it is very likely that this error violated Riggins' trial rights established by the Constitution. However, this is only speculative as there is no way to know what the outcome would have been if the proper course had been followed.
This decision highlighted two factors not previously emphasized in cases involving involuntary medication. First, the involuntary treatment must be the least intrusive treatment for restoration of competence. Second, the proposed treatment must be medically appropriate for the individual's safety as well as that of others. [cite web
author=Gregory B. Leong, MD
title=Sell v. U.S.: Involuntary Treatment Case or Catalyst for Change?|publisher=
Washington v. Harper" the individual protesting the involuntary medication was already incarcerated. The court suggested in this case that a competent person has the right to refuse if the medication is administered for other than treatment reasons to a person not dangerous or extremely ill, but it accepted the institution's procedures for making such treatment decisions. However, Riggins was not convicted at the time he was involuntarily medicated. In "Riggins v. Nevada" the court said that not only had the medication to be a medically appropriate means of attaining an important state objective such as competency, but the medication must be the least intrusive means of attaining the objective. However, it is important to note that although the treatment must be the least intrusive (for example, to allow the individual to retain a clear head to consult with his attorney as well as to avoid medication side effects), the court did not say that involuntary medication is never appropriate to achieve the state's goal.
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 504
Sell v. United States"
Perry v. Louisiana"
Ford v. Wainwright"
* [http://supreme.justia.com/us/504/127/ S Supreme Court Center> US Supreme Court Cases & Opinions> Volume 504 > Riggins v. Nevada 504 U.S. 12]
* [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_8466/argument/ Riggins v. Nevada case transcript]
* [http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/156457 Riggins v. Nevada - Opinion]
* [http://law.onecle.com/ussc/504/504us128.html Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127, 2 (1992)]
* [http://www.trowbridgefoundation.org/docs/medicating.htm Medicating Incompetent Defendants against Their Will to Restore Competency: Sell v. United States Changes Current Practice]
* [http://www.abanet.org/irr/hr/spring03/forcedmedication.html American Bar Association - Forced Medication of Legally Incompetent Prisoners: A Primer]
* [http://www.nysda.org/CDSweb/show_document.asp?doc_handle=11284989&req=jurors Summary New York State Defenders Association]
* [http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1991/1991_90_8466/ Oyez]
Wikimedia Foundation. 2010.
Look at other dictionaries:
Sell v. United States — SCOTUSCase Litigants=Sell v. United States ArgueDate=March 3 ArgueYear=2003 ReargueDate= ReargueYear= DecideDate=June 16 DecideYear=2003 FullName=Charles Thomas Sell, Petitioner v. United States Citation=123 S. Ct. 2174; 156 L. Ed. 2d 197; 2003 U … Wikipedia
Disability rights timeline — Disability Theory and models … Wikipedia
Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution — The Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution sets forth rights related to criminal prosecutions in federal courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that the principal rights guaranteed by this amendment are so fundamental and important that… … Wikipedia
Competence (law) — Evidence Part of the … Wikipedia
Involuntary treatment — (also referred to by proponents as assisted treatment and by critics as forced drugging) refers to medical treatment undertaken without a person s consent. In almost all circumstances, involuntary treatment refers to psychiatric treatment… … Wikipedia
List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 504 — This is a list of all the United States Supreme Court cases from volume 504 of the United States Reports :* Keeney v. Tamayo Reyes , ussc|504|1|1992 * Denton v. Hernandez , ussc|504|25|1992 * United States v. Wiliams , ussc|504|36|1992 * Foucha v … Wikipedia
Washington v. Harper — Infobox SCOTUS case Litigants = Washington v. Harper ArgueDate = 11 October ArgueYear = 1989 DecideDate = 27 February DecideYear = 1990 FullName = Washington, et al. v. Harper USVol = 494 USPage = 210 Citation = Prior = Subsequent = Holding = The … Wikipedia
O. J. Simpson — O. J. Simpson … Wikipedia
Halloween Havoc — was an annual professional wrestling pay per view produced by World Championship Wrestling from 1989 through 2000. The first two were under the NWA. The final five events were held in Las Vegas, Nevada at the MGM Grand Garden Arena.… … Wikipedia
Halloween Havoc — Pour les articles homonymes, voir Halloween (homonymie). Halloween Havoc est un ancien pay per view de catch produit par la World Championship Wrestling de 1989 à 2000. Les deux premières éditions étaient sous … Wikipédia en Français