The purpose of this casenote is to assess the propriety of the Riggins Court's decision and highlight some problems with the Court's reasoning. This note begins by discussing antipsychotic drugs and their side effects. Next, this note explores the ways in which courts have responded to the state's power to compel such medication, followed by an explanation of the types of objections raised to prevent this intrusion. Then, this casenote analyzes the Court's discussion of Riggins' eighth amendment claim, his liberty interest in avoiding forced medication, and the trial prejudice which anti-psychotic drugs can cause. Finally, this note analyzes the discussion of the state's compelling interest in bringing defendants to trial.
Ferrell, Richard L. III
"Riggins v. Nevada Fails to Resolve the Conflict Over Forcibly Medicating the Incompetent Criminal Defendant,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 26
, Article 7.
Available at: https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol26/iss2/7