United States of America v. Jasper Williams

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JASPER WILLIAMS,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 11-10417
D.C. No. 3:11-cr-08022-GMS-1
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
G. Murray Snow, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted July 17, 2012
San Francisco, California
Before: FERNANDEZ, PAEZ, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
Jasper Williams appeals from the district court’s order authorizing the
government to medicate him involuntarily for the purpose of rendering him
competent to stand trial. He challenges only the district court’s determination “that
important governmental interests are at stake” and “that involuntary medication
FILED
JUL 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

Page 2 of 3
will significantly further those concomitant state interests.” Sell v. United States,
539 U.S. 166, 180, 181 (2003) (emphasis omitted). We review the first
determination de novo and the second for clear error. See United States v.
Hernandez-Vasquez, 513 F.3d 908, 915–16 (9th Cir. 2008).
1. “The Government’s interest in bringing to trial an individual accused of a
serious crime is important,” Sell, 539 U.S. at 180, and Williams concedes that his
alleged crime—forcible rape—is “serious.” “[L]engthy confinement in an
institution for the mentally ill” may lessen the government’s interest in criminal
prosecution, id., but we can only speculate whether Williams’s current, temporary
confinement will eventually be extended. A mere possibility that this will happen
is insufficient to satisfy the government’s concern for public safety.
2. A government psychiatrist reported to the district court that haloperidol is
effective in treating the precise symptoms of schizophrenia that he believes cause
Williams’s incompetence. On this basis, the psychiatrist testified that the
government’s treatment plan is substantially likely to restore Williams to
competence. He also testified that the government would be able to manage any
side effects that might otherwise interfere with Williams’s ability to participate in

-- 2 of 3 --

Page 3 of 3
his eventual trial. The district court credited this testimony, and it did not clearly
err by doing so.
In rebuttal, Williams offered only a psychologist’s report showing that
Williams was taking haloperidol when the psychologist found him incompetent to
stand trial. But Williams had been taking the drug for only a few days, so his
incompetence at that point says nothing about the likelihood of success posed by a
full course of treatment. The psychologist’s report also shows that the drug
sedated Williams. But Williams was taking a much larger dose than the
government plans to administer, and the government’s psychiatrist testified
without contradiction that the lower dose is unlikely to cause sedation.
3. Because Williams does not challenge in his opening brief the district
court’s findings regarding the third and fourth Sell factors and defense counsel
expressly waived at oral argument any challenge to those findings, we do not
address them.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --