[1] During the early hours of November 20, 1987, David Riggins went to the Nevada apartment of Paul Wade, who was later found stabbed to death.

The court heard testimony from three psychiatrists with differing opinions and then gave a one-page decision denying Riggins' request but giving no rationale for the denial.

[1] Riggins appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court on the grounds that forced administration of Mellaril denied him the ability to assist in his own defense and gave a false impression of his attitude, appearance, and demeanor at trial.

[1] Riggins claimed that the forced medication was not justified, as the State had not demonstrated a need to administer Mellaril nor did it explore less restrictive alternatives to giving him 800 milligrams of the drug each day.

[1] The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that forced administration of antipsychotic medication during Riggins' trial violated his rights guaranteed under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.

[1] The Court held that a person awaiting trial has a valid reason, protected under the due process clause, to refuse antipsychotic drugs, referencing Washington v. Harper (1990) and Bell v. Wolfish (1979).

The State might have been able to justify the treatment, if medically appropriate, if it set forth that the adjudication of guilt or innocence could not be established by using less intrusive means.