The Utah Supreme Court today upheld Judge Judith Atherton’s June 2006 ruling that Wanda Barzee, accused in the June, 2002 abduction of then-14-year-old Elizabeth Smart may be given anti-psychotic drugs against her will in an attempt to make her competent to stand trial. Prosecution physicians had testified that the drugs had a 70% chance of restoring her competency, while defense physicians put the estimate at 20%.
No decision has been reached yet on whether to force co-defendant Brian David Mitchell to be medicated. Since his chances of being made competent range from 70% (prosecution) to “under 50%” (defense), and the order for Barzee’s medication has now been upheld, this now seems likely.
Upon hearing the Barzee ruling, Ed Smart, Elizabeth’s father, said “I’m very happy to see the Surpreme Court rule in favor of forced medication” — and personally, I find this difficult to understand (though truth be told, and I’ve written about this in the past, I’ve found a lot of Ed Smart’s statements and reactions over the past 5 1/2 years to be a little odd): What does anybody gain by Mitchell and Barzee standing trial? There isn’t any question about their guilt: Elizabeth was found with them nine months after she was abducted, and physical evidence abounds. They’re both confined to the Utah State Hospital and if they’re found guilty they’ll probably be ordered confined to the Utah State Hospital. A while back, CourtTV personality Nancy Grace tried to get Elizabeth to relate details of her captivity — which undoubtedly included rape — and Elizabeth refused. At trial, Elizabeth could be forced to recount in public what she clearly prefers to remain private.
At the very least, the trial would be taking place six or seven years after Elizabeth’s abduction.
Hey Bill,
Should someone abduct your young daughter and “only” rape her, hopefully you will state:
“What does anybody gain by standing trial?”
Dumb ass.