JOHN K. BUSH, Circuit Judge. When the government seeks to involuntarily medicate a mentally incompetent defendant to restore his competency for trial, the government’s prosecutorial interest must be balanced against the defendant’s “significant . . . liberty interest [under the Constitution] in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs.” Sell v.United States, 539 U.S. 166, 178 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221 (1990)). Aside from the potentially dangerous (and sometimes fatal) side effects of antipsychotic drugs, their very nature is to alter the cognitive processes of the patient. The drastic step of administering these powerful drugs to an unwilling criminal defendant should be taken rarely, and only when absolutely necessary to fulfill an important governmental interest, to avoid deprivation of the defendant’s “liberty . . . without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amends. V, XIV § 1.

Defendant Duane Berry is charged with Conveying False Information Regarding Explosives, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1038(a), which carries a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment. He allegedly placed a briefcase made to look like a bomb, but containing only papers and no explosives, outside a bank. Berry is not competent to stand trial absent medication—and even that is not guaranteed—but he does not wish to be medicated. The district court ordered him to be treated with antipsychotic drugs.

As discussed below, even assuming the five-year statutory maximum sentence for the charged crime makes it a serious offense that could qualify for Berry to be forcibly medicated, there are significant mitigating factors that weigh against finding that the government has a sufficient interest for such mandated treatment. Most importantly, Berry has already been confined for the length of time he likely would face as imprisonment if convicted, and his pretrial confinement would likely be credited against his jail term. In these circumstances we find that the government has not shown that its interest in prosecuting Berry outweighs his due process liberty interest. Accordingly, we REVERSE the decision of the district court and VACATE its order compelling Berry to be involuntarily medicated.