20. In Sell v. U.S. (2003)the U.S. Supreme Court held that, as with all involuntary commitment treatment standards, A a defendant must be a danger to him or herself B treatment can only be administered involuntarily if the defendant is facing a serious charge C treatment can be forced if it is substantially unlikely to have side effects that could undermine the fairness of the trial D treatment is to be via the least restrictive alternative available to further important governmental interests E All of the above

In Sell v. U.S. (2003), the U.S. Supreme Court established specific criteria under which the government can involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication to a mentally ill defendant in order to render them competent to stand trial. The Court held that such treatment is permissible only if:<br /><br />1. Important governmental interests are at stake.<br />2. Involuntary medication will significantly further those interests.<br />3. The medication is necessary to further those interests, meaning that less intrusive treatments are unlikely to achieve the same results.<br />4. The administration of the drugs is medically appropriate.<br /><br />Based on these criteria, the correct answer is:<br /><br />D. Treatment is to be via the least restrictive alternative available to further important governmental interests.<br /><br />This option aligns with the Court's emphasis on using the least intrusive means necessary to achieve the government's objectives while respecting the defendant's rights.