This was a first and only offense. Member had a valid medical condition requiring this med. Impersonated a doctor but admitted guilt & did not obtain medication. Family member was attempting to obtain additional amounts of medication to treat this condition. Member was denied ARD, and lawyer is trying to steer him into drug court. However, two psychiatric evaluations indicate physical dependence but not addiction. Also, three medical reports indicate family member had a valid medical condition & was not inventing illness to obtain medicine (a Schedule III cough suppressant). Should family member seek new council to obtain an outcome other than drug court? Is a Section 17 sentence possible? Thank you.
These questions should be directed to his attorney and no one else. Sharing these details online when he has already obtained counsel can only hurt his situation.
Not clear from the detailed recitation where this case is at this moment in the system, but what is clear is that the Defendant is represented by counsel who is/has made certain recommendations about strategy in handling the case. Questioner's connection to Defendant is described generically as a fellow member of the family. I confess I am troubled on two levels. First, the question indicates that it it posted by someone other than the Defendant. Does the Defendant share the same concerns/have the same unanswered questions? How, other than vicariously to the extent Defendant is honestly revealing, does the questioner know what is going on in the attorney/client relationship? The second level of concern is that there is the danger of impairment of the attorney/client relationship by the efforts (no doubt well-meaning) of other family members to second guess counsel's stewardship. I'm not comfortable entering into this area, if the Defendant him or herself has questions that have not been adequately addressed by current counsel, I would recommend that the Defendant ask trial counsel if there would be any objection to seeking a second opinion. I would anticipate that current counsel would acquiesce in such a request at which point Defendant and other attorneys would be free to communicate.