Court filing
Defendant's Motion for Release from Custody -- United States v. Aticha Jittaphol, a/k/a "Lily"
No. 1:21-cr-10270-MLW · Doc. 116 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW Document 116 Filed 06/09/22 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 MOTION FOR RELEASE FROM CUSTODY
Aticha Jittaphol hereby moves the Court to release her from custody.
Ms. Jittaphol has been in custody since approximately April 22nd. Her
guideline range is 0-6 months.
Ms. Jittaphol maintains that she has never used methamphetamine or any
other illegal drug since she entered a detox program in December. She challenges
the accuracy of the sweat patch tests that came back positive. After her last
probation hearing, two additional patch tests came back positive, while all urine
tests continued to come back negative. The continued inconsistency lends further
support to her position that the patch tests are wrong.
Ms. Jittaphol urged the Court to stop patch testing and require her to
provide an additional urine test every week. The Court rejected the proposal,
stating that this additional testing would pose too much of a burden on Probation.
Stopping the patch testing would have simply resulted in swapping the burden of
patch testing every week for the burden of doing another urine test every week.
Instead, the patch tests continued.
When Ms. Jittaphol was in detox and step-down in-patient treatment, she
was a model patient. If the Court believed that Ms. Jittaphol was using
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW Document 116 Filed 06/09/22 Page 2 of 3
methamphetamine, there were conditions short of incarceration that could have
been imposed with no basis to assume non-compliance. She could have been
placed in in-patient treatment. Ms. Jittaphol opposed this because she was not
using drugs. But she’s now incarcerated largely because this Court did not believe
her. That same disbelief could have warranted placement in in-patient treatment,
where there was absolutely no reason to anticipate non-compliance given her
history. Instead, she was punished for her violations, all of which, aside from her
not acknowledging that she had worked, involved drug treatment issues which
would have been moot if she’d been put in treatment instead of Wyatt.
Ms. Jittaphol is prepared to begin trial later this month. Allowing her to be
home would make it far easier for her to prepare for trial with counsel. When
both the defendant and the government proposed home confinement at the last
probation hearing, the Court expressed concern that someone could bring her
drugs at her home. This concern could be addressed by having her do urine tests
twice a week, rather than prioritizing the inconvenience to probation over Ms.
Jittaphol’s freedom.
Detention should be about an inability to comply with the conditions of
probation, nothing else. Ms. Jittaphol should be released to home confinement.
ATICHA JITTAPHOL
By her Attorney,
/s/ Keith Halpern
Keith Halpern, BBO # 545282
572 Washington Street, Suite 19
Wellesley, MA 02482
(617) 722-9952
2
Case 1:21-cr-10270-MLW Document 116 Filed 06/09/22 Page 3 of 3
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
June 9, 2022.
/s/ Keith Halpern
3
File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.mad.237964.116.0.pdf
- Size
- 95,448 bytes
- SHA-256
- e5f40233f76cd51e98c48d9ae03ef1497cf6ef3da6db9941f34686f74f5b1812
- Original
- PACER (login required)