Richard Anthony Morgan Status: pre-trial detainee in federal custody; also under the control of a spirit with the name Ja’ai (pronounced "jay-ie"). In that capacity he also claimed to be the son of Haile Selassie.

Morgan apparently preferred his exciting existence cavorting with the entities that inhabited or controlled him to that of a life of drudgery under the healing influence of antipsychotic medication. The medical doctors at the United States Medical Center for Federal Prisoners in Springfield, Missouri were insistent about introducing these agents to his corporal being in order to quiet the din within and perhaps, as an extra benefit, render him competent to stand trial.

Mr. Morgan had a great deal to answer for. He was under a three count indictment relating to charges of conspiring to possess and distribute cocaine base, a firearms violation in relation to drug trafficking, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The genteel arts of persuasion were not effective in convincing Mr. Morgan as to the benefits of modern pharmacology. So the hospital chose a different tack-force. To accomplish this, however, the Bureau of Prisons, of which, Mr. Morgan was a royal guest, prescribed regulations for convening an administrative hearing.

The Law

The regulations contained within the C.F.R. provide for the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication when medical personnel determine it is necessary to render the inmate competent to stand trial. Additionally, medication can be forcibly given because the inmate is dangerous to self or others, "gravely disabled" or not able "to function in the open population."

Since Mr. Morgan was being held after a finding that he was incompetent to stand trial, and was being housed in a prison medical facility, he was subject to the regulation.

There were certain procedural safeguards in place, including the right of appeal. Mr. Morgan was also entitled to be represented by an advocate from the hospital staff, with sufficient education or experience to understand the issues.

Thanks a Lot

Well, Mr. Morgan didn’t choose his staff representative wisely. He chose a prison guard to represent him. At the hearing, this representative did not do anything more than testify about Morgan’s bizarre behavior, which apparently, according to the guard’s testimony, didn’t include the patient’s choice of him as representative.

Morgan appealed in writing. His appeal document was described as "several rambling sentences." Morgan’s counsel then filed a motion with the district court in an attempt to enjoin enforcement of the order to forcibly medicate Morgan. His argument was that due process required the district court to make that determination pursuant to an evidentiary hearing.

The district court denied the motion and ruled that a decision about whether to medicate a pre-trial detainee against his will was better left to the judgment of medical personnel. The court could still review any determination on appeal but only on the basis of arbitrariness. However, since Morgan’s staff representative had not helped him prepare his appeal, the court ordered that Morgan be allowed to supplement his appeal utilizing the same individual who had intervened so eloquently on his behalf in the first hearing.

The result of this collaboration resulted once again in, "several rambling sentences." After that, the proceedings, suitably oiled with fortified due process, rolled along smoothly. The hearing officer issued the order once again; and the district court satisfied that there was no "arbitrariness" lurking, affirmed.

Morgan appealed to the Circuit moving for expedited consideration. It was granted and the district court stayed its order pending the appeal.

Credentials Needed

The Court affirmed the procedure and standard of review that the district court had outlined. The administrative procedure, the court ruled, provided sufficient due process protections at the administrative level. The court’s reviewing role would be to protect against arbitrariness in the decision to medicate. In the case under review, however, there had been no finding that the staff representative assigned to Morgan was knowledgeable or educated in the psychiatric issues involved with the determination to medicate.

As such, the district court’s order was vacated and the matter remanded for a factual determination of the representatives credentials. If lacking, a determination would then have to be made of the defendant had been thereby prejudiced.