Calling it an "abuse of discretion," attorneys for accused Elizabeth Smart kidnapper Wanda Barzee made their argument before the Utah Supreme Court Wednesday as to why 3rd District Judge Judith Atherton's ruling to allow forcible medication of their client was wrong.

Scott Williams argued that when Atherton agreed to allow the Utah State Hospital to forcibly administer anti-psychotic medication to Barzee, she ignored the evidence presented by doctors during a "Sell hearing" in February.

"(Atherton's) ruling is made despite the evidence and not because of the evidence," said Williams.

Williams argued that evidence presented during the hearing by Drs. Raphael Morris and Xavier Amador did not support Atherton's ruling. The facts she used to establish her ruling and the conclusion itself contradicted each other, he said.

The quality and quantity of time spent by those doctors with Barzee made them more of an expert than Barzee's own attending physician at the State Hospital, Dr. Kreg Jeppson, the attorney said. Williams said Jeppson was the "worst possible" person in terms of someone providing a diagnosis for Barzee because she believed that Jeppson was "possessed by Satan" simply because he worked for the state and refused to cooperate in his evaluations.

Justices Wednesday also questioned whether Atherton's ruling was based solely on Jeppson's diagnosis and whether Atherton might have ruled differently on the issue of forced medication without his input.

Jeppson died of cancer the day Atherton's ruling was released.

Assistant Attorney General Christine Soltis, however, noted that both Jeppson and Dr. Paul Whitehead testified during the same hearing there was a 70 percent likelihood of Barzee's competency being restored with medication.

She said the defense's arguments were baseless.

"They're attacking the fact the trial court credited (Jeppson and Whitehead's reports)," Soltis said.

Soltis also questioned the credibility of the two defense witnesses, saying that Morris was not familiar with today's anti-psychotic medication, and Amador had never actually restored a person to competency himself.

The defense, however, argued there was no "substantial likelihood" that medication would restore Barzee's competency, a requirement in forced medication. Amador even argued during the Sell hearing that if Barzee were his patient he would encourage her to try medication even though he doubted it would work, Williams said.

All of the doctors agreed, according to Soltis, that medication would not interfere with Barzee's ability to consult with her attorneys during her criminal proceedings.

Williams disagreed, saying that the side effects from some anti-psychotic medication are generally not favorable to a person's physical condition and at trial "would impair the fairness of the proceedings."

The state's high court took the arguments under advisement for a decision to be released at a later time.

Barzee, along with her co-defendant and estranged husband Brian David Mitchell, are accused of kidnapping Smart from her Federal Heights bedroom in June of 2002. Smart was spotted with the couple in Sandy in March of 2003 and returned to her family.

---

E-mail: preavy@desnews.com