PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Norko, Michael A.
AU  - Cotterell, Mark S.
AU  - Hollis, Tamika
TI  - The Connecticut Experience with <em>Sell</em> Legislation
AID  - 10.29158/JAAPL.200005-20
DP  - 2020 Dec 01
TA  - Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Online
PG  - 473--483
VI  - 48
IP  - 4
4099  - http://jaapl.org/content/48/4/473.short
4100  - http://jaapl.org/content/48/4/473.full
SO  - J Am Acad Psychiatry Law2020 Dec 01; 48
AB  - Since 2004, Connecticut has had two different mechanisms for involuntary medication of defendants hospitalized for restoration of competence to stand trial. In this article, we first describe the development of these two mechanisms and compare their procedural elements. The first procedure required a hearing in criminal court, in a process parallel to the subsequent U.S. Supreme Court holding in Sell v. United States; the later procedure uses a civil mechanism in probate court and was enacted in response to the dicta in Sell regarding the preferential use of alternate mechanisms for involuntary medication orders. To compare the effectiveness and efficiency of the two mechanisms, we examined 1,455 admissions to the state's secure forensic hospital for competency restoration for the calendar years 2005 through 2011. Petitions for involuntary medication of defendants were filed in five cases in criminal court (0.3%) and in 177 cases (12.2%) in probate court. The probate mechanism resulted in a significantly shorter duration of the resolution of the competence matter. Both mechanisms were effective at restoring defendants' competency (i.e., two thirds were restored by the criminal court process, and nearly 74% were restored in the civil process).