US v. Williams: Williams was convicted in 2017 in Oregon of assault and sentenced to four years in prison. In addition, the district court imposed conditions of supervised release requiring Williams take any mental health medications and participate in mental health treatment programs. While incarcerated, Williams had issues with taking his medication, leading to his transfer to FCI Butner in North Carolina “to assess whether he could be safely released.” The Government requested civil commitment, based on a psychologist’s conclusion that Williams would be a danger if released because he would not take medication as required. The district court granted the motion, commenting on the arguments of the parties (without ruling one way or the other) on whether it could or should consider the imposed supervised conditions as part of its commitment decision.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s decision and remanded for further procedures. The court concluded that the civil commitment statute required a court to determine whether release of the defendant “would create” a risk of danger to others, which “does not permit – much less instruct – a commitment court to pretend that the person will not be subject to terms of supervision . . . and conduct a thought experiment about whether the same person would likely endanger others if not so constrained.” That does not mean that anyone on supervised release would be excluded from civil commitment, but it is an issue the district court must deal with.
Judge Richardson dissented, arguing that he and the majority “part ways” on the issue of whether the district court “show[ed] enough of its work.”
Congrats to the Defender office in the EDNC on the win!
No comments:
Post a Comment