More on Dr. Sell. The Supreme Court limited review to the issue of "whether it violates the Constitution to forcibly administer antipsychotic medication in order for the government to bring someone to trial for nonviolent offenses." So Satel characterized the argument of Sell's lawyer correctly. But if that's the only issue before the Court, where does she come up with the claim that "likely as a result of paranoia, he conspired to kill a witness and a Federal Bureau of Investigation agent"?

The Washington Post understates the un-reality of the matter when it points out:

[The issue] is also somewhat unrealistically framed in the Supreme Court, because the federal government has also charged him with trying to intimidate a witness and hire a hit man to kill an FBI agent -- but neither of those charges is technically part of this appeal, and the justices must rule as if they did not exist.

What about the Article III "case or controversy" requirement? Isn't the Court addressing a hypothetical that doesn't exist?

According to the NYT report:

Dr. Sell's court-appointed lawyer, Barry A. Short, argued that the balance tilted clearly in favor of his client, whom he described as dangerous neither to himself nor others and whose nearly five years of pretrial confinement was already longer than the sentence the federal guidelines would impose had he been tried and convicted.

Dr. Sell has a fundamental right to refuse medication, he said, adding that "under these circumstances, I do not see any compelling interest whatsoever in prosecuting this defendant." He said that although Dr. Sell was incompetent as a legal matter, he was "medically competent" to understand his situation and make his own decisions.

It sounds like the attorneys are arguing the case as if the Sells' alleged efforts to kill people never existed. And how can one be competent to make medical decisions but not assist in one's own defense?

I hope Talk Left, the best blog on criminal law I know of, writes about this.

Update: Talk Left comments on the Supreme Court case here. And here is the NACDL link.