Lawyer: Jailing addict for relapse is ‘unfair’

Attorneys for a recovering opioid addict will try to convince the state’s high court today ordering her to stay drug-free as a condition of probation is “cruel, arbitrary, and fundamentally unfair.”

Julie Eldred, 29, of Acton, whose lawyers argue suffers from “severe substance use disorder,” admitted in Concord District Court on Aug. 22, 2016, that there were sufficient facts to find her guilty of larceny, according to briefs filed with the Supreme Judicial Court.

Eldred was placed on probation for one year with the condition she remain drug-free. But her lawyers tell justices “relapse is a symptom” of her disorder, and on Sept. 2, 2016, Eldred tested positive for fentanyl and was sent to state prison pending placement in a treatment program.

“Julie Eldred did not ‘choose’ to relapse any more than a person who has hypertension chooses to have high blood pressure, a person who is homeless chooses to sleep in an alley, or a person who is destitute chooses not to pay court-ordered fees or restitution,” her attorneys contend in their written appeal. “In light of our contemporary understanding of substance use disorder as a chronic, relapsing, and eminently treatable brain disease, mandating that Eldred remain drug free and then jailing her when she ‘fail(s) to comply’ is cruel, arbitrary, and fundamentally unfair.”

Attorney General Maura Healey’s office counters in its brief that six people die in Massachusetts every day from opioid, heroin and fentanyl abuse.

“The drug-free and testing conditions of probation are constitutional because they are based on the proven assumption that most people with drug addiction retain the ability to exercise choice,” prosecutors say. “These conditions are indispensable for promoting public safety and helping defendants with (substance-abuse issues) to achieve recovery.”