Advertisement

Loughner’s attorneys appeal for end to his forced medication

Share

Attorneys for Tucson shooting suspect Jared Lee Loughner asked a federal appeals court to order an end to his forced medication at a prison hospital, arguing in papers filed Thursday that the government is violating his constitutional right to refuse potentially dangerous antipsychotic drugs.

The appeal of U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns’ decision last month, that prison doctors are in a better position to prescribe treatment for the diagnosed schizophrenic than are the courts, is the latest legal volley between Loughner’s public defenders and the U.S. attorney’s office in Tucson over how to restore his mental competency to stand trial.

Loughner is charged with 49 felony counts stemming from the Jan. 8 rampage that killed six people and injured 13 others, including Rep. Gabrielle Giffords. In May, Burns deemed Loughner incompetent to stand trial and sent him to the mental hospital prison in Springfield, Mo., for treatment.

Advertisement

Loughner’s San Diego-based lawyers sought and won an injunction July 12 from the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals against his forced medication, but prison doctors have continued to administer psychotropics.

Government lawyers told the appeals court that prison doctors said Loughner’s condition has deteriorated sharply and that he needs the drugs to prevent him from harming himself or others.

A further appeal by Loughner’s lawyers for the 9th Circuit to enforce the order against involuntary medication was rejected by the appeals court last Friday in a ruling that left it to prison doctors to decide what constitutes a medical emergency.

Thursday’s filing by chief defense lawyer Judy Clarke argued that the government could use less intrusive means to alleviate any danger Loughner presents to the prison staff or himself.

The appeal brief said the government was seeking to treat Loughner’s mental illness with “unwanted brain-altering chemicals” — which as a pretrial detainee he should have the right to refuse — rather than simply pacify him with mild tranquilizers.

carol.williams@latimes.com

Advertisement