From Deseret News archives:

High court: Barzee to be forcibly medicated

Published: Friday, Dec. 14, 2007 3:42 p.m. MST
 |  E-MAIL | PRINT | FONT + - 
Doctors at the Utah State Hospital have been given the green light to forcibly medicate accused Elizabeth Smart kidnapper Wanda Barzee.

Friday, the Utah Supreme Court issued its opinion that 3rd District Judge Judith Atherton's ruling allowing forced medication will stand. The state's high court voted 3-2 in favor of upholding Atherton's ruling in a 52-page opinion. Chief Justice Christine M. Durham and Justice Ronald E. Nehring dissented.

Barzee, 62, and her estranged husband, co-defendant Brian David Mitchell, are charged with kidnapping and sexually assaulting Smart in 2002. Three times she has been ruled incompetent to stand trial. Doctors at the Utah State Hospital say they have tried everything to restore her competency except anti-psychotic medication, which she refuses to take.

On June 21, 2006, Atherton ruled Barzee met the four criteria set in Sell v. United States and could be forcibly medicated. Barzee's defense team quickly filed an appeal with the state's highest court, which agreed to hear the case on Dec. 6, 2006. Attorney Scott Williams argued that Atherton's decision was not supported by the evidence presented in court.

Story continues below
For Barzee to be forcibly medicated, Atherton had to find that she met the four criteria set in Sell vs. United States. Those criteria included:

• Important governmental interests were at stake.

• Involuntary medication would significantly further those interests by being "substantially likely" to restore the defendant's competency.

• The medication would substantially unlikely have side effects.

• Anti-psychotic medication is medically appropriate.

Both Durham and Nehring believed the second point, that anti-psychotic medication would make it "substantially likely" that Barzee's competency would be restored, was not supported by the evidence presented in court.

"I believe the district court did not properly weigh all of the evidence presented within the framework of this high burden. Instead, the court ignored the testimony of the defense experts," Durham wrote in her opinion. "Proper balancing does not simply require a court to pick one expert or one side to defer to ... "

Durham noted that she "did not doubt that medication is the appropriate medical treatment for Ms. Barzee." She went on to write, however, that, "This court is not charged with determining what is best for Ms. Barzee from a mental health standpoint ... Unless the State's interest is highly likely to be furthered by the intrusion upon Ms. Barzee's liberty, this court cannot allow the State to forcibly medicate her ... "

Recent comments

Green light? Like this is some kind of business zoning story, or an...

Bad choice of terms | Dec. 14, 2007 at 5:34 p.m.

Wanda is looking at life in prison for what she helped her husband do...

Lacee | Dec. 14, 2007 at 4:38 p.m.

Isn't it cheaper to keep her in the State hospital than in prison?...

John | Dec. 14, 2007 at 4:17 p.m.

previousnext

Latest comments

Sad to hear, but can understand that FAMILY COMES 1ST! Is anyone taking...

good to see a returned missionary doing so well. can't believe he dropped to...

Don't sacrifice education to save $

re Mike Richards | 11:24 a.m. Feb. 9, 2010 Did it occur to you that in...

'Why can't the libs leave Palin alone? (Sic) Are they afraid of her?' On...

This bill will never get out of committee — it is dead on arrival.

That's awesome!

White House mocks Sarah Palin

Re:Beetruck "Had she a teleprompter, every line carefully scripted,...

Letters: Let Bauer loose

Perhaps you should stop lieing to and fooling yourselves, and stop...

While I am a long way from being a Palin fan, I think Gibbs' attempt at humor...

To: "To Bill @ 6:09" If Bill's not on and can't do it, it's not hard to...

Advertisements