Former Ann Arbor attorney should stand trial in 2006 fatal drug overdose, state court rules
The Michigan Supreme Court has ordered a former Ann Arbor area attorney to stand trial on charges that he helped provide the drugs that led to an Ypsilanti woman’s fatal overdose in 2006.
In a 4-3 decision, the justices found both the circuit and appellate courts erred in determining probable cause didn’t exist to send Ron Plunkett’s case to trial.
The ruling, released earlier this month, concluded the first legal challenge to a relatively new law aimed at punishing drug providers in private and social settings that result in fatal overdoses.
Plunkett, 54, is scheduled to appear in circuit court Monday, when a trial date will likely be set, Washtenaw County Chief Assistant Prosecutor Joe Burke said.
Ron Plunkett is shown in this 2008 file photo.
Burke said he wouldn't comment on a pending case Tuesday. He also declined to comment on the high court’s ruling, other than to say the office’s appellate attorneys did a good job.
Authorities charged Plunkett with a felony count of delivery causing death in August 2007, more than a year after 22-year-old Tiffany Gregory collapsed in the bedroom of Plunkett's Ann Arbor apartment. Paramedics were called, but Gregory died from a lethal combination of alcohol, cocaine and heroin.
The U.S. Army National Guard medic was scheduled for deployment to Iraq later that year.
Circuit Judge Melinda Morris dismissed the charge after reviewing testimony from Plunkett’s preliminary hearing that indicated Tracy Corson, Plunkett’s girlfriend, physically obtained the drugs and gave them to Gregory, her childhood friend.
Plunkett, a former Ann Arbor city attorney who later specialized in criminal defense, was convicted of drug possession and was sentenced to probation and drug rehabilitation.Â
John Shea, his attorney, did not return messages left Tuesday.
Corson, now 24, was paroled last November after serving two years in prison on a charge of drug delivery causing death, prison records show.
In the high court’s ruling, Justice Robert Young Jr. wrote Plunkett aided and abetted the acquisition of drugs by providing Corson with transportation and money.
In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Marilyn Kelly said the majority’s interpretation of the case was overbroad.
“Under the majority’s analysis, any third party who assists in a drug transaction may be charged with delivery of those drugs under an aiding and abetting theory,” Kelly wrote.
The ruling could have an impact on an unrelated, but similar case in Washtenaw County.Â
In 2008, prosecutors charged Jonathan Sink and Casey Reeve with providing the drugs that led to the death of 23-year-old Catherine Colarelli in a Main Street apartment. Charges against Sink were dismissed after evidence showed he provided the means for the drug transaction but not the actual transfer.
Reeve, 24, was sentenced last November to serve three to 20 years in prison.
Burke said prosecutors are currently reviewing whether to re-authorize charges against Sink based on the Supreme Court ruling.
Art Aisner is a freelance writer for AnnArbor.com. Reach the news desk at news@annarbor.com or 723-623-2530.
Comments
snapshot
Mon, Aug 2, 2010 : 10:43 p.m.
Our government just completed a billion dollar renovation on an electrical plant in Afganistan that supplies more power for the farmers, who happen to grow the poppy as their main crop which they convert to heroin and import it to the US. The Taliban, in some areas, controls the same grid, and is now making more money to use in killing our soldiers. So our government basically subsidized the production of the heroin that killed these folks. The government also subsidizes funding to the terroists that kill our soldiers. Go figure.
drosefree
Fri, Apr 16, 2010 : 7:50 a.m.
me-thinks they are prosecuted much to harshly...a charge that carries potential life for a co-addict, not a dealer, is plain wrong, regardless of weather he wears a suit or not.
Peter
Thu, Apr 15, 2010 : 1:24 p.m.
Sure Ron's made a few mistakes, we all have, but I can hoestly tell you that meeting Ron through my AA meetings has made a big impact on my understanding of addiction. It works if you work it, and I know Ron's workin' it. God bless you Ron. Stay srong Stand your ground, your a good man. Thank you for your inspiration.
Chase Ingersoll
Thu, Apr 15, 2010 : 7:45 a.m.
Methinks they doth prosecute themselves. Using any substance for the purpose of being in an "altered psychological state" is an exercise in free will that transports the participants into a world that normal people cannot understand and ultimately cannot control. The "other" world is a land of Choas with a different set of norms, rules and consequences. I think it has proven difficult, if not impossible for society to regulate, control and adjudicate the results of actions between participants who freely entered into that other world. Arguing that they didn't bargain to die, be ignored while they overdosed, or be assisted in the overdoes is not relevant in a world where that is common and where every participant has stepped into the world, acknowledging the consequences of that step, even while claiming "it won't happen to me." There is a third parallel world to mention in this paradigm, that is the world of "authority". Those whose passion to exert coercive influence upon other worlds and people in them that they deem dysfunctional step into this world of never ending frustrations. Like the world of substance abusers, they too will look for a satiating quick fix and consider the long term consequences of such a life as "not happing to me". From my world, there is no escaping the irony of the number of players in the "authoritarian" world who being unable to regulate the chaotic world of substance abusers, enter into that world and join it wholeheartedly. Plunkett's dilemma, is that he entered into a new world, while still attempting to enjoy the privilege of his prior address. Had his treason not been made public, his World of Authority would have gladly circled the wagons and assisted him in a cover-up so long as he renounced his second world and re-committed himself to the world of authority. But being caught so openly as he was, fully consorting with the sworn enemy of the World of Authority, and in a battle where all of the best and worst efforts of the Authority failed to prevent death - the highest form of victory for the Ruler of Chaos, Authority must reason it's loss and publicly purge its traitor or fundamentally lose its philosophical gravity in the eyes of all other worlds. Fascinating stuff to watch, this War Between Worlds. PS. Undoubtedly the World of Authority knew for a long time that Plunkett was ducking into the World of Chaos. But because he was a fully vested member, the other members of that world covered for Plunkett. If they can allege that "but for Plunkett the woman would not have died", it stands to reason that "but for their failure to report Plunkett per the rules of their professed Code of Professional Ethics to which they swore, Plunkett would not have had the means to effectuate his actions which resulted in the woman's death. Methinks they doth prosecute themselves.
drosefree
Thu, Apr 15, 2010 : 7:04 a.m.
Our prisons would be FULL of co-addicts if the law actually applies in this way. In the typical day to day life of addicts, it could just as easily been the victim that supplies the money, transportation and connection with the actual dealer. Im not sure we should prosecute someone because they happen to be the addict with the money. Ron sounds like a victim himself and not the person the prosecutor seems to think he is. I thought this law was intended to punish the dealer?
lizdemonster
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 8:44 p.m.
This is pointless. Sending Ron Plunkett to prison would accomplish nothing. Sure, he made some major mistakes in the past, but he's not a harm to society. In fact, he's a great help to society. Ron is a fantastic mentor for other recovering drug addicts and by keeping them healthy and sober, he makes Ann Arbor a better place. Furthermore, how is it his fault that Gregory overdosed? As an addict himself, he could not keep himself away from drugs, let alone someone else. Who's to say she wouldn't have gotten drugs elsewhere? He did not force her to take them, she took on that risk all by herself. Lokalisierung is right on. This was obviously a terrible terrible mistake and must be tragic for Gregory's family and friends, but the precedent here is wrong in my opinion.
15crown00
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 5:55 p.m.
so let the trial begin.if he's found not guilty well we go from there but let the jury decide not the judge.also take the trial out of Washtenaw County.
Atticus F.
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 12:36 p.m.
I agree with the majority of the comments here. People who are close to drug addicts and alchoholics often enable because they dont know how to deal with addiction. This law could be used to prosecute family members and loved one who have already been punished enough by their unwitting actions.
Lokalisierung
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 12:28 p.m.
It's outrageous to me still. I see an old friend (sure alchie that's always the excuse!) So we goto the bar. I buy him some drinks, he drives homes crashes and dies. I bought the drugs from a dealer, supllied him with them...am I guilty of a crime? how about the bar that served him? how about my employer who gave me the money to buy him the drinks? Where the heck does it end? The case history Ed is talking about...I mean I kind of see their point but it's too much. What if she doesn't know how much to inject? What if it's really pure stuff, or really bad stuff, or it's average and she took a bunch of valium that reactedd with it...etc.
ChrisW
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 11:55 a.m.
The opinion is not outrageous given the actual facts. See: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-09/138123/138123-Opinion.pdf The money quote: "Corson testified that defendant drove her from Ann Arbor to Detroit on the day in question for the specific purpose of engaging in a drug transaction with Spencer. Moreover, defendant paid for the heroin that Corson used on the drive back to Ann Arbor, provided to defendants ex-girlfriend in defendants apartment, and subsequently shared with Gregory in defendants apartment. Furthermore, the evidence adduced at the preliminary examination suggests a consistent pattern of heroin activityfrom acquisition to consumptionin defendants presence." Whether drugs should be legalized is a completely different matter not before the court.
just a homeowner
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 11:54 a.m.
What a stupid case. Why is the prosecutor bothering with this? Someone has already gone to prison for administering the drugs. Enough already.
Lokalisierung
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 11:26 a.m.
Under the majoritys analysis, any third party who assists in a drug transaction may be charged with delivery of those drugs under an aiding and abetting theory, Kelly wrote." Insanity
Woman in Ypsilanti
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 11:19 a.m.
I know I sure feel safer knowing that these horrible people are being kept off of the street. *rolls eyes*. Seriously, the original incident was obviously a horrible tragedy but what purpose does it serve to punish those who were around when it happened even if they were also using? I mean what purpose other than costing tax payers a bundle in law enforcement, court, and prison costs?
treetowncartel
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 10:17 a.m.
Whatever happened to personal repsonsibility for one's own actions?This is a horrible precedent. The tautology follows that the Washtenaw county prosecutor should prosecute Mother Nature for providing the rain and sunshine that makes the poppy plant grow.
blugoose
Wed, Apr 14, 2010 : 9:49 a.m.
Why can't they just legalize drugs so everyone can have them and they can be taxed? Then people won't have to sneak around to get drugs, all crime will disappear, flowers will bloom, global warming will cease, etc., etc. Oh wait, maybe this is exactly why drugs are illegal.