The Morris County Law Division continued in relevant part: Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that one can equate the constitutionality of involuntary education with involuntary medication, this court rejects that Sell permits the appointment of a Guardian / Guardian Ad Litem for the purpose of providing defendant with involuntary education to attain competency. In Sell, the United States Supreme Court established a four-prong test to determine whether the involuntary administration of medication to a defendant for the purpose of restoring competency is permissible. Id. at 180. “First, a court must find that important governmental interest at stake. The Government’s interest in bringing to trial an individual accused of a serious crime is important.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). “Courts, however, must consider the facts of the individual case in evaluating the Government’s interest in prosecution. Special circumstances may lessen the importance of that interest.” Ibid. In R.G., the Appellate Division specifically recognized that “circuit courts have differed on how to apply the first factor under Sell: some rely on the maximum sentence for the charges to evaluate if the crime is serious; others consider the defendant’s probable sentence.” Second, a court must determine that “involuntary medication will significantly further those concomitant state interests.” Sell, 539 U.S. at 181 (emphasis in original). The court must find that “administration of the drugs is substantially likely to render the defendant competent to stand trial.” Ibid. (emphasis added). Third, the court must find that “involuntary medication is necessary to further those interests.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). Fourth, the court must determine that “administration of the drugs is medically appropriate.” Ibid. (emphasis in original).
This court now concludes that the State has failed to meet the first two prongs under Sell by clear and convincing evidence. Accordingly, this court now rejects Sell as authority for allowing the appointment of a Guardian / Guardian Ad Litem and for the imposition of involuntary educational services for the purpose of bringing defendant to competency to stand trial.
Another distinction between involuntary medication and involuntary education is that a defendant can still refuse to engage in the education. Once medicine is introduced into the body, it is much more difficult to resist the intended effects.
