United States v. Magassouba

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• reasoning that the defendant’s total circumstances should be considered when determining whether his detention is violative of due process
• holding “that the statute does not affirmatively require a district court to issue a § 4241(d)(2) commitment order before the expiration of a § 4241(d)(1) hospitalization order, nor does it strip a district court of the authority to do so thereafter”
• applying Sell and holding that collateral order doctrine permitted interlocutory appeal of involuntary hospitalization for psychiatric treatment and involuntary medication
• finding harmless error for hospitalizing a defendant under § 4241 for three weeks after the initial four months expired
• finding no due process violation where delay was “largely attributable to [the defendant’s] own action” in refusing treatment
• entertaining appeal under collateral order doctrine from § 4241(d)(2) commitment order, where defendant argued district court lacked authority to enter order as result of lapse in § 4241(d)(1) custody

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).