How should district courts decide whether a crime is 'serious' within the meaning of Sell?

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166, 179-80 (2003), this Court held that “the Constitution permits the Government involuntarily to administer antipsychotic drugs to a mentally ill defendant facing serious criminal charges in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial, but only if the treatment is medically appropriate, is substantially unlikely to have side effects that may undermine the fairness of the trial, and, taking account of less intrusive alternatives, is necessary significantly to further important governmental trial-related interests.” The Sell Court, however, provided scant guidance on what constitutes a “serious” criminal charge implicating important governmental interests and warranting the involuntary administration of medication. Consequently, the lower federal courts have devised many different, and often conflicting, approaches to identifying “serious” crimes for Sell purposes. The question presented by this petition is: How should district courts decide whether a crime is “serious” within the meaning of Sell? i