Defendant's Memorandum Re Discharge Note & 4/8/22 Order -- United States v. Aticha Jittaphol, a/k/a "Lily"

Full text

   Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW        Document 73       Filed 04/09/22    Page 1 of 3




                      UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                   FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS


United States of America                                No. 21-CR-10270-MLW
     v.
Aticha Jittaphol

DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM RE DISCHARGE NOTE & 4/8/22 ORDER

      Ms. Jittaphol withdraws her objection to admission of the discharge

summary into evidence, largely because it does not say anything different than

parts of her record. However, if the document had been offered into evidence

during the government’s examination of Ms. Wertz, the defendant would have

been able to pursue questioning concerning the document and discuss it in

argument. The defendant wishes to make a few points regarding the document.

      It was not produced as part of counsel’s request for Ms. Jittaphol’s

complete record, and it was not produced to Probation prior to Ms. Wertz’s

1/11/22 email requesting such a document. Counsel is very skeptical that it was

prepared by January 3rd, but then not provided to Ms. Wertz until sometime after

January 11th and not provided to counsel until January 20th.

      The document is not germane to the alleged violation concerning a failure

to follow Probation’s instruction to go to long-term in-patient residential care.

There is no evidence that Probation ever communicated with Ms. Jittaphol while

she was at the Hope Center. Whatever reluctance she expressed to anyone at the

Hope Center about continuing treatment, whether in-patient or out-patient, does

not establish what happened when Probation talked to her after her discharge.
  Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW         Document 73       Filed 04/09/22     Page 2 of 3




      After discharge, Ms. Curran and Ms. Wertz both told Ms. Jittaphol and

counsel that the Hope Center had made a clinical recommendation requiring long-

term in-patient residential treatment. The discharge summary provides further

evidence that this was untrue. There was no such recommendation, clinical or

otherwise. The discharge summary states that Ms. Jittaphol was resistant to

continuing care, whether in-patient or IOP, but the assertion that the Hope Center

had determined that in-patient treatment was needed was false, there never was

any such recommendation. Whatever the discharge summary says, her treatment

record has numerous notes in which she spoke to counsellors about out-patient

treatment that she was interested in, and there is nothing in her record, and

nothing in the discharge summary, about a recommendation for in-patient care

rather than out-patient. See Ex. 12, Hope Center Record, pp. 7, 12, 14, 15.

      Whatever reluctance Ms. Jittaphol expressed while at the Hope Center

about out-patient care, it did not persist after discharge. This is confirmed in email

communications between Ms. Wertz and counsel, including a January 11th email

in which counsel wrote that Ms. Jittaphol had no objection to long-term out-

patient treatment. There is no evidence that Ms. Jittaphol ever told Probation that

she declined to participate in any out-patient treatment. And she has participated

in the various out-patient treatment modalities urged by Probation.

      What she did not do, after discharge from the Hope Center, was follow

Probation’s instruction that she go to long-term in-patient residential care because

the Hope Center had made a clinical recommendation for it. She declined to




                                         2
  Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW              Document 73          Filed 04/09/22       Page 3 of 3




follow an instruction that was knowingly premised on a false claim that the Hope

Center had determined that in-patient care was needed, and which was

inconsistent with the standard of care. See Dr. Gitlow Report, Ex. 13. On January

4th, counsellor Colleen Fenton told Ms. Wertz that she believed out-patient

treatment “is sufficient.” Ex. 7, Chronology, p. 24. After that call, Probation

continued to tell Ms. Jittaphol and counsel that the Hope Center had determined

that in-patient treatment was needed. As soon as Probation told counsel about the

issue, there was a plan agreed upon to raise the matter with the Court.

       Lastly, it should be noted that Probation subsequently concluded that in-

patient treatment was not needed after several negative drug tests. Later, when

Ms. Jittaphol tested positive on a sweat patch for the first time, and Probation

again recommended in-patient treatment, Probation then changed its position

again, concluding that subsequent negative tests established that Ms. Jittaphol was

not appropriate for in-patient treatment.

                                                         ATICHA JITTAPHOL
                                                         By her Attorney,

                                                         /s/ Keith Halpern
                                                         Keith Halpern, BBO # 545282
                                                         572 Washington Street, Suite 19
                                                         Wellesley, MA 02482

                                   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
April 9, 2022.
                                                          /s/ Keith Halpern




                                                3


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.mad.237964.73.0.pdf

Size

104,485 bytes

SHA-256

e98c4707e80d1315ed064eba607855643e3fc799efa49b4663e4caa6152095dc

Our copy

gov.uscourts.mad.237964.73.0.pdf

Original

PACER (login required)