DeCarlos Brown, the 35-year-old homeless man who boarded a commuter train in Charlotte, NC, last August and randomly, wantonly, viciously, slashed the throat of the beautiful Ukrainian refugee, Iryna Zarutska, has been found “incapable to proceed” to trial.  Of course, it is a psychiatrist who determined Brown was unfit to face the murder charges against him and will decide Brown’s fate. 

AbleChild suspects that psychiatrists within the state have played a major role in Brown’s life, especially his mental health. The questions that need to be revealed about Brown are how long he has been under the state’s mental health system and what is Brown’s exact mental health and psychiatric drug history? 

This is important information as it is certain that Brown, whether by the state or federal charges, will have his day in court. The murder was captured on video and, regardless of his mental health status, Brown will face the consequences of the murder of Iryna Zarutska and will be sentenced by the same state supported mental health system that also provided his decades long “care.” Oddly enough, if history repeats, the psychiatrists within in North Carolina’s behavioral health system who “treated” Brown will also determine whether Brown lives or dies.

At issue is whether Brown can assist in his defense. In fact, in North Carolina, a defendant must be able to understand the charges against them, understand their role in the court proceedings and assist in their defense. Brown reportedly failed the capacity evaluation conducted last December. 

The question that the court will have to answer is whether it will force Brown to undergo psychiatric “treatment” (drugging) to participate in his trial. Whether a court can order the accused to receive drug “treatment” was settled in Sell v. United States, where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that defendants can be forcibly medicated with psychiatric drugs to make them mentally competent to stand trial as a last resort and if the following conditions are met.

*The crime must be serious – the government’s interest in prosecuting this specific defendant must be strong enough to justify overriding their right to refuse medication.

*The drugs must likely work – there must be solid medical evidence the medication will restore competency, not just sedate the defendant.

*The drugs must not harm the trial’s fairness – the medication cannot impair the defendant’s ability to work with their attorney or distort how they appear to a jury.

*No other option exists – forced drugging is the last resort; all less-invasive alternatives must have been utilized and ruled out. 

AbleChild would argue that there are bigger fish to fry in this case in so much as Brown has a mental health history that must be explored to know which psychiatric drugs have been prescribed to Brown over the years and clearly failed to “treat” Brown’s mental illnesses. 

It cannot go unnoticed that in Brown’s first jailhouse phone call to his sister the suspected killer admitted to the stabbing and made claims that the “material” or “man-made material” in his body was implanted by the government and that forced him to commit the act. Brown’s sister revealed that her brother suffers from paranoid schizophrenia and had been experiencing delusions for years. 

Beyond Brown’s mental illnesses, the suspect also has a long criminal history including 14 arrests for larceny and breaking and entering among other things and spent five years in prison for robbery with a dangerous weapon. The murder suspect was arrested in January of last year but still was on the streets when he took Zarutska’s life. Brown’s mother told local television that she had sought an involuntary psychiatric commitment for Brown when he had become violent at her home. That process is often lengthy and difficult to obtain unless one can prove the defendant is a danger to themselves or others.

Of course, there is no doubt about whether Brown is a threat to others and currently is being held in a state mental hospital until decisions can be made about his ability to stand trial. There also is little doubt that Brown, having been diagnosed with at least schizophrenia, will be medicated while in the State’s custody.

But the larger question is, who within the state’s mental health system provided mental health services to Brown throughout his life? When did Brown first begin receiving mental health care? What was the first mental health diagnosis Brown received and how many diagnoses has Brown received since the first diagnosis? Further, what were all the drug cocktails prescribed to Brown as “treatment” for these mental health diagnoses?

It is important to have all the defendant’s mental health history laid bare in order to understand what led the homeless man to murder so brutally. It may be a case of a random attack by a severely mentally ill man but, every psychiatric drug has serious adverse events associated with it. And too often those possible adverse side effects are not considered as an equation in the attack.

If the court orders that Brown will be drugged, the same mental health system that diagnosed and drugged Brown over the years may also be the “experts” called on to drug the defendant into judicial submission. And, at the end of day, if Brown is unable to participate in his own defense, in spite of the drugging, the same mental health experts who “treated” him throughout his life may also have a say in whether Brown lives or receives the death penalty. A kind of psychiatric judge, jury and hangman. One industry playing all sides.