Opposition to Probation Revocation — United States v. Aticha Jittaphol (D. Mass.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts · No. 1:21-cr-10270-MLW · Doc. 24 · 2022-01-18 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS 
 
 
 
 
 
 
United States of America   
 
 
 
No. 21-CR-10270-MLW                             
        v. 
Aticha Jittaphol 
 
 
     
OPPOSITION TO PROBATION REVOCATION 
 
 
 
Aticha Jittaphol hereby opposes the revocation of probation and urges the 
Court not to require participation in in-patient drug treatment as a condition of 
probation unless Ms. Jittaphol tests positive for methamphetamine and there is a 
determination that she needs in-patient treatment to remain sober.  
 
Ms. Jittaphol was appointed counsel in July 2021. She immediately told 
counsel that she was addicted to methamphetamine and wanted to quit but did not 
think that she could do it without an in-patient detox program. She described 
becoming increasingly depressed as her massage business collapsed due to COVID, 
and then due to a criminal investigation, and turning to methamphetamine to ease 
her depression. She asked counsel to help her find treatment. At Ms. Jittaphol’s 
request, counsel contacted Probation and asked if it was possible to place her in a 
detox program immediately. Probation advised that they could only get involved 
after a charge was initiated. 
        An Information was filed on September 13th, together with a “C” plea 
agreement, providing for Ms. Jittaphol to plead guilty to two counts of making 
false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001, and for a sentence of 36 months 
of probation with no incarceration. 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 24     Filed 01/18/22     Page 1 of 5

 
2 
 
Probation arranged for Ms. Jittaphol to enter a one-week in-patient detox 
program at the BHN Carlson Recovery Center in Springfield in early December. 
She successfully completed the program and transitioned to a two-week step-down 
at the Hope Center in Springfield, also part of the Behavioral Health Network. She 
successfully completed that program on December 27th and went home. 
Certificates confirming successful completion of these programs are provided at 
Attachment 1. 
The Hope Center has recommended that Ms. Jittaphol participate in long-
term residential in-patient treatment. Probation advised counsel that it was looking 
to place her in a program in Springfield, leading counsel to suspect that the Hope 
Center has recommended that Ms. Jittaphol be placed in another Behavioral 
Health Network facility. Counsel’s impression was that this recommendation did 
not take individual circumstances into account. 
Probation takes the position that it is bound to follow the recommendation 
of Hope Center, even though there is no indication that Ms. Jittaphol has used 
methamphetamine since her discharge on December 27th. On January 12th, 
Probation told counsel that Ms. Jittaphol had not yet been tested. The condition of 
in-patient care preceded any testing. At counsel’s insistence, Probation agreed to 
test Ms. Jittaphol that day. The results have not yet been provided.  
Like any criminal lawyer, counsel has routinely represented individuals 
dealing with drug addiction. Ms. Jittaphol is the only client counsel has ever had, 
not charged with a drug crime, who immediately told counsel that they had an 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 24     Filed 01/18/22     Page 2 of 5

 
3 
addiction, wanted to stop, and needed help. Far more common is the client who 
acknowledges drug use but maintains that they do not have a problem. Ms. 
Jittaphol admitted her need for help and wanted it. She now feels that she can 
remain clean without further in-patient treatment. There is no reason to doubt her 
honesty and her commitment to sobriety. She states that she does not feel an urge 
to use. She may turn out to be wrong. She may relapse. She is using a skin patch 
for testing. It must be examined and changed every week. If she uses 
methamphetamine the results will be quickly known. There is no significant harm 
in seeing if she is correct that she can stay off methamphetamine on her own. 
The defendant has filed a motion for funds to retain an addiction expert. In 
conversation with counsel, the proposed expert, Dr. Stuart Gitlow, told counsel 
that one of the most fundamental criteria for the need for in-patient care is a fact-
based determination that the client is likely to use without it. It is not appropriate 
to use in-patient treatment as a prophylactic measure without patient-specific 
evidence that relapse is likely.  
Ms. Jittaphol is a licensed massage therapist. She has worked as a massage 
therapist in medical offices. At present, she is seeing clients for massage therapy 
and earning in the range of $600-$700/week, while looking for employment in a 
sports medicine or physical therapy facility. 
She rents her own apartment and has a lease that runs though July. She has 
a dog. She has friends in the Boston area where she lives. The plain truth is that 
giving up her apartment, her work, her dog, her contact with friends, and her 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 24     Filed 01/18/22     Page 3 of 5

 
4 
independence is likely to cause the sort of depression that led her to use 
methamphetamine to begin with.   
In-patient treatment should not be required where: 
• there is no evidence of continuing drug use; 
• there is no patient-specific evidence that Ms. Jittaphol is likely to relapse; 
• Ms. Jittaphol has been truthful about her addiction and her ability to stop using; 
• the provider appears to have a financial interest in further in-patient treatment; 
• Ms. Jittaphol will be proving Probation with an arm patch every week for 
testing; 
• Ms. Jittaphol is willing to attend out-patient counselling, although she does not 
believe that she needs it to stay off methamphetamine; 
• there would be no harm in deferring in-patient treatment until a time when Ms. 
Jittaphol tests positive and there is a fact-based determination that she needs in-
patient treatment to stay clean;  
• in-patient treatment would require Ms. Jittaphol to give up her current life, a 
sacrifice that inevitably would result in depression, where there is no basis to 
conclude that this sacrifice is necessary in order for her to remain sober; and 
• in-patient residential treatment would expose Ms. Jittaphol to a much higher risk 
of contracting COVID. 
 
Ms. Jittaphol urges the Court to reject Probation’s demand for in-patient 
treatment. If the Court takes the matter under advisement, then she asks the Court 
to allow her to provide a report from an addiction expert, addressing the proper 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 24     Filed 01/18/22     Page 4 of 5

 
5 
criteria for requiring in-patient treatment and whether in-patient residential 
treatment is appropriate at this time.  
 
For these reasons, Ms. Jittaphol’s probation should not be revoked, and she 
should not be required to participate in in-patient treatment at this time. 
ATTICHA JITTAPHOL 
By her Attorney, 
 
/s/ Keith Halpern 
Keith Halpern, BBO # 545282  
572 Washington Street, Suite 19 
Wellesley, MA 02482 
(617) 722-9952 
 
  CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that this document, filed through the ECF system, will be sent 
electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing 
(NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on 
January 18, 2022. 
/s/ Keith Halpern 
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW     Document 24     Filed 01/18/22     Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.237964.24.0.pdf

Size

108,567 bytes

SHA-256

e65709fc2d8b0f3e68e7b58a6d671d186d9c201129ef4e460f28ad51b04963ed

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.237964.24.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)