In September 1992, John Maxwell Montin walked onto a farmstead in Nebraska and began making confused statements. According to law enforcement officers, Montin attempted to enter the farmhouse, announced that the house belonged to his ancestors, and threatened to reclaim it from the occupants. He then allegedly fired several shots around the property and at law enforcement officers, igniting an 11-hour standoff that culminated in his arrest. Initially, Montin was charged with multiple counts of first-degree attempted murder, multiple counts of using a firearm to commit a felony and one count of falsely imprisoning the residents of the farmhouse. However, most of these counts were dismissed for lack of evidence, and Montin was tried only on the false imprisonment charge, one first-degree attempted murder charge and two weapons charges.
The evidence presented at trial diverged substantially from the initial reports given by law enforcement. For instance, the trial evidence showed that the residents of the home answered their door holding shotguns; that Montin hid in a nearby ditch overnight; and that the responding deputies heard only a single shot during the incident. Ultimately, the jury found Montin not guilty of attempted murder and not guilty of one of the weapons charges. It also found him not responsible by reason of insanity on the other weapons charge and on the false imprisonment charge. Based upon the insanity verdict, Montin was committed to the Lincoln (Nebraska) Regional Center in August 1993.
At the center, those involved in Montin's treatment determined that he was suffering from a delusional disorder — but they based that determination on the initial police reports rather than the evidence presented at trial. Moreover, it appears that they assumed that Montin was found not responsible by reason of insanity on all four counts. Thus, when Montin proclaimed his innocence of attempted murder, his claims were deemed to be evidence of persisting delusions. Similarly, when Montin refused to admit that he was mentally ill or take medication, his resistance was taken as evidence of continuing mental illness.
Over time, the professionals charged with assessing and treating Montin changed, but they continued to make annual reports to the court that supported findings that Montin remained mentally ill and dangerous.
Finally, in 2012, an attorney persuaded a psychiatrist at the center to read a transcript of Montin's trial. After reading the transcript, the psychiatrist began working to obtain Montin's release. Then in 2013, another psychiatrist at the center concluded that the 1993 incident was caused by a psychosis induced by the medicine that Montin had been taking for back pain, and that this psychosis abated once he discontinued the medicine. In July 2013 — 21 years after the farmstead incident — the court ordered Montin's release.
In 2014, Montin filed a lawsuit in federal court against those who treated him during his commitment, alleging professional malpractice and violations of civil rights. This spring, the court dismissed all of Montin's claims.
The court's dismissal ruling hinged largely on the concept of qualified immunity, which (generally stated) protects government officials from lawsuits unless they violate "clearly established" statutory or constitutional rights. The court found that involuntarily civilly committed people do indeed have protected liberty interests in being free from unnecessary, improper confinement. However, it concluded that the contours of the particular right asserted by Montin were not "clearly established" because a reasonable official in the position of Montin's treating professionals would not have known that his or her conduct violated Montin's right to be released under Nebraska's Special Procedures for a Person Acquitted on Grounds of Insanity. The court also noted that under these procedures, the responsibility for deciding whether Montin should be released from commitment was not borne by the staff of the center, but rather by the court that presided over Montin's trial.
The court's ruling attempts to balance individual civil rights against the need to protect government officials acting in good faith from lawsuits. In March, Montin appealed the dismissal of his claims, and it remains to be seen whether the court's analysis of the contours of the rights of civilly committed people will stand.
"Judicial Notebook" is a project of APA Div. 9 (Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues).
