The legal memorandum opposes the state's motion to forcibly administer antipsychotic medication to the client, Jason Nelson, in order to render him competent to stand trial for manslaughter charges. It argues that Nelson is already competent to stand trial with the assistance of counsel, even if he cannot independently assist in his own defense. Forcibly medicating Nelson would likely undermine the fairness of the trial due to the significant side effects he has experienced from such drugs in the past. The memorandum concludes the state's motion should be denied based on case law protecting a defendant's constitutional rights to a fair trial and to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.

1. LEGAL MEMORANDUM
To: Raquel Y. Bristol, Esq.,
From: Justin Waldman, Paralegal
Re: Our Client- Jason Nelson
Our File Number: PI919
Opposition to State’s Motion to forcibly administer medication upon Nelson
Date: December 13, 2008
________________________________________________________________________
ISSUES
Is Jason Nelson competent to stand trial?
Can the State force a Nelson to take medication in order to stand for trial?
BRIEF ANSWERS
1. Yes. Jason Nelson is competent to stand trial.
2. No. The state cannot force a defendant to take medication to stand for trial.

2. STATEMENT OF FACTS
Our client, Jason Nelson (“Nelson”), has been charged with manslaughter. Nelson
is mentally ill and is currently confined in a mental institution. Because of his mental illness, Nelson
cannot assist in his defense and thus is not competent to stand trial. The prosecutor in this case made a
motion asking the court to forcibly administer antipsychotic medication to Nelson to render him able to
stand trial. Medical experts have determined that if Nelson receives the medication, he has a 20%
chance of being rendered competent if the state intends to administer the medication. Nelson is
vehemently opposed to receiving such drugs, primarily because he has suffered significant and
debilitating side effects from the drugs when he has taken them in the past. The side effects include
drowsiness, lethargy, and confusion. Absent the charges pending against him, Nelson has never been a
danger to himself or others.
DISCUSSION & ANALYSIS
Despite Nelson’s mental illness, he still should be able to stand trial. As described, the mental
illness does not appear to be too severe to render him incapable of taking the stand along with
assistance from council. Based on his current condition, it would be unconstitutional to involuntarily
medicate our client. Nelson feels that the forced medication will disrupt his ability to give descent
testimony during the trial.
COMPETENCY
Despite the fact that Nelson cannot assist in his own defense, he can still be competent to stand
trial. Nelson is not proceeding pro se, therefore it should not be a problem for him to stand trial with the

3. help of counsel. Nelson has difficulty comprehending certain principles, but is intelligent in his own right.
He is smart enough to know that anti-psychotic drugs have adverse side effects on him. Only in cases
where the defendant’s mental condition is such that he lacks the capacity to understand the nature and
object of the proceedings against him and cannot consult with counsel, would that defendant not be
subject to a trial. Drope v. Missouri, 420 U.S. 171 (1975). The description does not describe Nelson since
he is able to consult with us and is not a danger to himself or others.
The courts held that a person is competent to stand trial based on the ability to consult with
counsel and to understand proceedings. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U.S. 388 (1966). If Nelson could not
comprehend the proceedings than surely he would not mind getting injected with mind altering drugs
since he feels competent to stand trial without them. In Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 179 (2003), the
Supreme Court was forced with the issues of competency and forced medication. The Supreme Court
held that only under certain circumstances can a defendant be forcibly medicated. The circumstances
include the treatment being medically appropriate, unlikely to have side effects undermining the
fairness of the trial, and is necessary to further important government interests. Since the antipsychotic
medication for Nelson has side effects that can undermine the fairness of a potential trial, a
circumstance allowing the state to force medication on our client appears to be moot.
Just because Nelson has a history of mental illness does not mean that the illness has rendered
him incompetent everyday for many years at every waking hour. According to the majority opinion in
Indiana v. Edwards, 128 S. Ct. 2386 (2008), “Mental Illness itself is not a unitary concept. It varies in
degree. It can vary over time. It interferes with an individual’s functioning in dif ferent ways . . . He will
be able to work with counsel at trial, yet at the same time he may be unable to carry out the basic tasks
needed to present his own defense without the help of counsel.” Based on the legal principles outlined,
Nelson should not have a problem standing trial with our help.

4. INVOLUNTARY ENFORCEMENT OF DRUG-TAKING
Nelson does not need involuntary medication forced into his body in order to stand trial. Since
the facts state he would have a he would have a 20% chance to testify in an able manner, one can
assume that there is an 80% chance that the medication would leave him unable to testify clearly. The
anti-psychotic medicine could have such an effect on Nelson’s thinking and speech that his testimony in
front of the jury could be prejudiced in favor of the prosecution. In a factually similar case, a defendant
was forced to take anti-psychotic drugs. That defendant suffered side effects which had an impact not
just on his outward appearance, but also on the content of his testimony on direct and cross
examination, his ability to follow the proceedings, and the substance of his communication with council.
Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 137 (1992). As a result, the Supreme Court overturned Nevada’s guilty
verdict.
This warping of Nelson’s mind without his permission would violate his constitutional right to a
fair trial since his warped mind and speech under medication could force him to be a witness against
himself. U.S. Const. Amend. V. Nelson also has the constitutional right to be secure in his own mind
without any chemical substance effecting his thought processing or delving into his inner thoughts. U.S.
Const. Amend IV. The side effects from the medication constitute cruel and unusual punishme nt that
Nelson has a right to be free from. U.S. Const. Amend. VIII. According to Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S.
210, 229 (1990), “The forcible injection of medication into a non consenting person’s body represents a
substantial interference with that person’s liberty.” While there are times that a person may be
medicated in an involuntary way for a trial, Nelson does not need any medication to stand trial. He is not
a danger to himself or others and the drugs would make him worse off than if he did not take them.
Since the medical experts have concluded what was previously mentioned in the sentence before this
specific one, the medical conclusion fulfills the procedural guidelines of 28 C.F.R. § 549.43 (a) (5): “The
psychiatrist conducting the hearing shall determine whether treatment or psychotropic medication is

5. necessary in order to attempt to make the inmate competent for trial or is necessary because the
inmate is dangerous to self or others . . . .”The medical experts’ opinion that the medication only has a
20% success rate is detrimental to the State’s motion. Due process permits the state to treat a prison
inmate, who has a serious mental illness, with antipsychotic drugs against his will only if the inmate is
dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate’s best interest. Washington, 494 U.S.
at 227. Since neither standard applies here, there is no need for the medication. Instead of medication,
maybe a less intrusive way of helping our client to testify more clearly could help.
CONCLUSION
With all the prior case law and constitutional amendments on our side, we should be able to
defeat the prosecutions motion. Unless our client was mentally handicapped with a serious condition,
there should be no need to medicate our client for trial. Our client also does not show a dangerous
streak toward others and himself. Although our client was accused of manslaughter, such a crime lacks
an actual intent to harm. Therefore, our client should be allowed to testify unhindered by mind-altering
drugs. The 20% chance of the drug’s effectiveness on our client is outweighed by the 80% chance of the
drugs not working for our client and in fact harming his defense as seen in Riggins. In sum, we should
succeed in convincing the court to deny the prosecution’s motion.