United States v. Benitez

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. EDGAR ARMANDO BENITEZ, Defendant.

No. 19-cr-80141-RUIZ/MATTHEWMAN

United States District Court, S.D. Florida

June 22, 2021

MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR AN ORDER REQUIRING THE INVOLUNTARY TREATMENT OF THE DEFENDANT TO RESTORE COMPETENCY [DE 37]

WILLIAM MATTHEWMAN, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.

This cause is before the Court upon the Government's Motion for an Order Requiring the Involuntary Treatment of the Defendant to Restore Competency [DE 37] (“Sell Motion”).

Defendant Edgar Armando Benitez (“Defendant” or “Defendant Benitez”) has filed a response [DE 44], and no reply was filed. The Government's Sell Motion was referred to the undersigned by the Honorable Rodolfo A. Ruiz, II, United States District Judge. [DE 38]. The Court held several hearings on this matter, as discussed below. The matter is now ripe for review.

I. INTRODUCTION

Defendant has been charged by Indictment [DE 3] with possession with intent to distribute 500 grams or more of methamphetamine, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 841(a)(1), which offense carries a ten-year mandatory minimum prison sentence and a maximum of life imprisonment upon conviction. Investigating agents originally received information that Defendant would be transporting approximately five kilograms of crystal methamphetamine to Palm Beach County by commercial bus on July 13, 2019. [DE 1]. Defendant was arrested on July 13, 2019 when he was found to be carrying 4, 121.07 grams of methamphetamine, and he was subsequently charged in federal court. Id.

On September 5, 2019, Defendant filed an unopposed motion for a competency examination. [DE 9]. This Court ultimately determined that Defendant was incompetent to proceed and committed him to the custody of the Attorney General for treatment on February 2, 2020. [DE 19]. Defendant is currently in custody and is being held at the Federal Medical Center at Butner, North Carolina (“FMC Butner”).

Defendant remains incompetent to proceed and has refused all psychiatric medication while in custody. The parties agree that Defendant is currently incompetent to proceed, but they disagree as to whether he should be involuntarily medicated in an effort to restore him to competency. Accordingly, the Government is now seeking an Order from this Court that Defendant be involuntarily medicated by the medical staff at FMC Butner in an effort to restore him to competency, pursuant to Title 18 United States Code, Section 4241 and Sell v. U.S., 539 U.S. 166 (2003). Defendant opposes the Government's Sell Motion.

Under Sell, there are four factors which the Government must prove by clear and convincing evidence to obtain a court order to involuntarily medicate a defendant in an effort to restore the defendant to competency. As is appropriate in these cases, the medical staff at FMC Butner requested that the Court initially address the first threshold Sell factor before requiring them to prepare and submit a proposed treatment plan for the Defendant. [DE 30, pp. 3-4, para. 7-8]. This is because, if the Court were to find that the Government had not met the first threshold Sell factor, then FMC Butner would not have to utilize scarce medical resources to prepare a proposed treatment plan addressing the remaining three Sell factors. After hearing from the parties and addressing the first Sell factor, this Court previously found that the Government had proven by clear and convincing evidence the existence of that factor, that is, that the Government has a sufficient interest in prosecuting Defendant. [DE 35]. No. objections or appeal have been filed in relation to that prior Order of the Court, and that prior Order [DE 35] is incorporated herein.

Accordingly, this Report and Recommendation addresses the remaining three Sell factors. In order to properly address the Government's pending Sell Motion [DE 37] and decide the three remaining Sell factors, the Court has held two evidentiary hearings and considered the reports, testimony, and opinions of the medical experts, as well as all relevant exhibits.

II. BRIEF SUMMARY OF THE EXPERTS' REPORTS

The first report was authored by Dr. Dawn Graney, Psy.D., on December 12, 2019. [Govt. Ex. 5, DE 52-5]. Dr. Graney, a forensic psychologist who was not called to testify at the evidentiary hearing, diagnosed Defendant Benitez with Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder. [Govt. Ex. 5, DE 52-5, p. 8]. Dr. Graney opined that Defendant was incompetent to proceed. Id. Dr. Graney also opined that there is a substantial probability that, within a period of treatment in an in-patient setting, such as provided for in Title 18 U.S.C. 4241(d), Defendant's mental health symptoms will improve sufficiently so that he can be restored to competency to proceed in the foreseeable future. [Govt. Ex. 5, DE 52-5, p. 9]. Dr. Graney's report was issued in 2019 and dealt with the earlier competency issue. Dr. Graney's report did not address whether Defendant should be involuntarily medicated pursuant to Sell.

The second report was issued on October 20, 2020, by Dr. Evan Du Bois, Psy.D., a clinical psychologist at FMC Butner. [Govt. Ex. 1, DE 52-2]. As previously found by Dr. Graney, Dr. Du Bois opined that Defendant suffers from Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder and remained incompetent to proceed. [Govt. Ex. 1, DE 52-2, p. 8]. Dr. Du Bois opined that, without Defendant taking psychiatric medication, it does not appear that there is a substantial probability in the foreseeable future that Defendant will attain the capacity to permit the proceedings to go forward. [Govt. Ex. 1, DE 52-2, p.8]. However, Dr, Du Bois testified that, as a psychologist, he does not prescribe psychiatric medication, does not make a recommendation as to whether someone should be medicated, and does not determine the type of medication. He therefore referred Defendant to Dr. Graddy, the Chief Psychiatrist at FMC Butner. Further, and important to the Court's resolution of the Government's Sell Motion, Dr. Du Bois stated in his report as follows:

Additionally, consultation with the Chief Psychiatrist has indicated involuntary medication for the purposes of competency restoration is not appropriate.

[Govt. Ex. 1, DE 52-2, p. 8].

The third report is a Treatment Plan Memorandum [Govt. Ex. 3, DE 52-3] dated January 11, 2021 by Dr. Logan Graddy, M.D., the Chief Psychiatrist at FMC Butner, together with the FMC Butner Sell Appendix [Govt.'s Ex. 4, DE 52-4], which Dr. Graddy co-authored, and an article which he relied upon in issuing his opinions entitled “The Sell Effect: Involuntary Medication Treatment is a ‘Clear and Convincing' Success” [Govt. Ex. 2, DE 52-1]. Dr Graddy opined, consistent with Dr. Graney and Dr. Du Bois, that Defendant's diagnosis is Unspecified Schizophrenia Spectrum and Other Psychotic Disorder and that Defendant remains incompetent to proceed. [Govt. Ex. 3, DE 52-3]. In his Treatment Plan Memorandum, and important to the Court's resolution of the Government's Sell Motion, Dr. Graddy opined:

A population of patients similar to this patient do generally respond to medication and can be restored to competency. But, in this particular situation the record is not consistent with a therapeutic response to medication, and the diagnosis is uncertain. Therefore, I have no opinion as to whether involuntary medications are substantially likely to render Mr. Benitez competent to stand trial.

[Govt. Ex. 3, DE 52-3].

Finally, Defendant has also been evaluated by a defense expert, Dr. Daniel Bober, D.O., a psychiatrist, who authored his own report. See Def. Ex. 1, DE 56. Dr. Bober stated that he could not opine as to whether forced medication will render Defendant competent to proceed. However, he did opine that the risks of forced medication on Defendant outweigh the potential benefits.

III. THE SELL EVIDENTIARY HEARING

The Court held a lengthy two-day evidentiary hearing on the Government's Sell Motion on May 10 and May 26, 2021. [DEs 53, 55]. Defendant appeared at the hearing via Zoom VTC from FMC Butner. Based on concerns related to the COVID-19 pandemic, counsel for Defendant waived his client's personal presence in court for both hearings and agreed to Defendant's appearance via Zoom VTC, which the parties and the Court agreed was in Defendant's best interest. The Court found, pursuant to the CARES Act and Chief Judge Moore's Administrative Orders, that the hearings could not be further delayed without serious harm to the interests of justice and accordingly proceeded by VTC for both hearings.

Dr. Du Bois, Dr. Graddy, and Dr. Bober all testified via Zoom VTC. Dr. Du Bois was recognized as an expert in clinical psychology. Dr. Graddy and Dr. Bober were recognized as experts in the field of psychiatry. There were no objections raised by the parties as to the qualifications of the three experts, and the Court finds them all to be well-qualified as experts as proffered by the parties. The Court has carefully considered the testimony of the three experts and has determined their credibility in reaching its findings and recommendations.

Dr. Du Bois:

Dr. Du Bois, a Clinical Psychologist at FMC Butner, was the first Government witness, and he testified on May 10, 2021. Dr. Du Bois evaluated Defendant Benitez over a lengthy period of time, beginning in June 2020, and he has had numerous, serial interviews with Defendant. Dr.

Du Bois was the primary clinician or doctor for Defendant Benitez. According to Dr. Du Bois, Defendant remained incompetent to proceed, Defendant's condition has not improved since he arrived at FMC Butner, and Defendant has refused to participate in therapeutic...