United States v. Onuoha, No. 15-50300 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CaseDefendant, charged with allegedly making phone calls to authorities at LAX instructing them to evacuate the airport, appealed the district court's order authorizing the BOP to forcibly medicate him to restore his competency to stand trial. In Sell v. United States, the Supreme Court recognized that the government may involuntarily medicate a defendant charged with a serious crime to restore that defendant to competency to stand trial. The court held that the district court clearly erred in finding that the proposed course of treatment was in defendant’s best medical interests. The court concluded that the fourth Sell factor is lacking, and the district court clearly erred in finding that the proposed treatment was in defendant’s best medical interest. The record demonstrates that the proposed treatment includes dosages higher than are generally recommended and that the use of a long-acting medication does not conform to the standard of care. Furthermore, the court could not credit the expert's testimony that the medication and dosage was appropriate without exploring and answering the questions posed by contradictory evidence in the record. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded.
Court Description: Criminal Law. The panel vacated the district court’s order authorizing the Bureau of Prisons to forcibly medicate the defendant to restore his competency to stand trial, and remanded for further proceedings, in a case in which the defendant was charged under 18 U.S.C. §§ 844(e) and 1038(a)(1) for making phone calls instructing authorities to evacuate the Los Angeles International Airport. Addressing the defendant’s challenges to the district court’s conclusions on two of the requirements set forth in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), the panel held that there is an important government interest at stake in prosecuting the defendant, but that the district court clearly erred in finding that the proposed course of treatment was in the defendant’s best medical interests.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.