@Seattle1 - any updates yet? TIA!
No change since my last update 7 days ago.
The case got really behind starting with Motion #65-- seeking to Order MC involuntary medicate to restore him competent to stand trial pursuant to
Sell v US. (See link below for copy of the Motion, pages 1-5).
Before MC could respond to the Motion for involuntary meds, his lawyer withdrew and another defense lawyer appointed. This resulted in an extension of time for MC to respond to the
Sell Motion (see 6/7/24 News 7 link below), and then the parties jointly filed an extension of time for BPO to provide a treatment plan to restore MC to competency.
The Motion for a time extension was granted and BPO was given to August 29 to file the plan. However, before the parties all started needed extensions, we know the Court had previously given MC about 70 days to file his response.
This time, the Court said they would not commit to setting the due date for MC's response until after the BPO's proposed plan was actually in the hands of the Court. Nonetheless, I think it's safe to assume that MC won't be filing a response until around November and a hearing will be set sometime in November if not later.
If I understand
Sell correctly, what's at issue here are two things -- whether or not forcibly treating MC will make his condition worse--thus extending his inability to stand trial, or whether or not the Court will grant continuing to house MC in a hospital where he's essentially under civil commitment, and allow treatment using less intrusive options.
IMO, we won't likely see the proposed treatment plan (i.e., sealed) per medical privacy laws.
In referencing the
Sell test (criteria for Government to Order involuntary Rx), Government was quick to cite how
Sell cautioned it does
"not mean to suggest that civil commitment is a substitute for a criminal trial."
Matthew Taylor Coleman, 40, said he killed 10-month-old and 2-year-old to prevent them from turning into monsters, according to prosecutors
www.nbcsandiego.com