Drug law could send once-prominent Brighton lawyer Ron Plunkett to prison for life
A "horrid" drug addiction and a relatively new state law have combined to ensnare once-successful Brighton lawyer Ron Plunkett in a case that could send him to prison for life, the Detroit News reports.
Because Plunkett paid for the heroin that resulted in a woman's death, he could be held criminally responsible for it under a state law that went into effect in 2006.
Ron Plunkett
Plunkett's attorneys say the law was meant to hold drug dealers accountable, not someone like their client, The News reported. The lawyers note that Tracy Corson, who was Plunkett's girlfriend at the time, gave Tiffany Gregory the heroin that resulted in her death.
"It was Corson who bought, carried, mixed and handed heroin to the deceased," Kevin Gentry of Whitmore Lake, told The News.
But prosecutors argue that had it not been for Plunkett's willingness to buy the drug, Gregory would still be alive.
The article notes several courts have divided on the issue, with the Michigan Supreme Court last agreeing with an Ann Arbor district court's finding of probable cause. The case is now scheduled for trial in November.
The article chronicles Plunkett's descent into a life of addiction to crack cocaine and the subsequent disintegration of his law practice. It also describes the events of the day in June 2006 when Gregory died.
Comments
miss tracy ann
Mon, Aug 30, 2010 : 7:08 a.m.
well dagney maybe you should re read the articles because the "girlfriend" did not administer the heroin...or better yet stop trying to defend ron...let him take responsibility...or heres an even better idea...stop commenting on things that you dont even know the truth behind...tiffany did not ask "the girlfriend" to administer the drugs.....trust me on this, i just might know what really happened that night!
Chuck
Wed, Jul 7, 2010 : 8:27 a.m.
You need to quit removing my ON TOPIC comment. No one forced her to put that stuff in her veins. It was her choice to have him get it for her. If it weren't this guy, it would have been someone else. She made the choice. This is on topic and my opinion, so quit deleting it.
Dennis
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 5:12 p.m.
" prosecutors argue that had it not been for Plunkett's willingness to buy the drug, Gregory would still be alive." I have known heroin addicts both in and out of recovery. She was going to get heroin whether or not he paid for it. Instead of going after the person who sold the heroin, the prosecutor is going after a drug addict, Big surprise! This is just another example of the failure of the war on drugs in this country.
Larry White
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 3:56 p.m.
It's time for the lawmakers that wrote this out of control law to rescinde it now. Isn't the Primary August 3rd?
Nancy Williams-Spivey
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 2:30 p.m.
First let me say that I am sorry for Mr. Plunket. But isn't he an attorney don't he know and understand the law. I don't think that it is fair for the woman that purchased and helped the deceased woman to use the herion to get two years while Mr. Plunket face life in prison when he just provided the money for the drugs. I am sure he didn't know that she was going to overdose nor did he intend for her to die. He was doing what turned him on and a lady lost her life doing something she knew could kill her. Although, it is sad that she died but that was a choice she made when she decided to use a drug she knew nothing about except what her frien told her. I really don't think that Mr. plunket should go to jail for life, but because he is an attorney he should have known better than to party with these two women. Now he should just take his punishment just like a drunk driver that caused an accident that killed or injured someone. But at the same time I don't believe that facing life in prison for providing money for drugs is right not only for the attorney but for anyone who is facing this LAW why was this law made in the first place. What is it's purpose of it and who is it intended for if it is drug dealers I still think that is is unfair, because when a person dies from alchol poison will the alchol company be charged for their death too.
DagnyJ
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 8:07 a.m.
You should read the Det News article. He did not administer the heroin. The girlfriend did, and the deceased apparently asked her to. Plunkett gave the girlfriend money to buy the drugs.
Olan Owen Barnes
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 7:48 a.m.
There has been a decrease in the quality in the use of prose within the article; "The article notes several courts have divided on the issue," - substitute were for have.
walker101
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 7:33 a.m.
If he had an opportunity to profit from it like dealers do would have it been any different, it's premeditated on his part, he understood and had knowledge that it had consequences when he administered it. If it were someone other than a white, educated and prominent individual it would not have even made the news. If it had been your daughter, sister or a loved one would you consider it overzealous? I guess the law does not apply in this case according to his attorney's, heaven forbid he's an attorney.
masticate
Tue, Jul 6, 2010 : 1:40 a.m.
The Detroit News article is misleading, I think. It's full of sensationalist language to bring attention to the seriousness of his addiction (the severity of it is actually not uncommon), but it doesn't talk at all about the person Ron Plunkett is today. Multiple people have commented about how this man has turned his life around, and how he is a huge support figure in the recovering community. I think if the jury read about that, they will have a very hard time finding him guilty. He may not be innocent, but is it worth sending a clearly changed, good man to prison (for life) just to make a point?
bobr
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 9:32 p.m.
What an expensive waste of tax dollars. Because our society criminalizes a medical/addiction problem, we now have to pay police officers, prosecutors and judges (not to mention the Court of Appeals judges who will get to hear this case for a second time) to sort this out and if convicted, we have to pay a large fortune to house another prisoner: the cost of prison guards, medical care, heating and building maintenance, administrative personnel. It would be far, far less expensive if people with drug problems could attempt to deal with them, like other medical problems, without fear of arrest and imprisonment.
NorthsideZak
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 8:18 p.m.
@Bones, re-read the article. He only paid for the drugs, everything else was done by the "girlfriend". This law, in my opinion, is broken no matter who it was intended to go after. This man is an addict. Not a killer, not a monster, an addict. I battled addiction for many years. Now, 2 years sober and lots of support later my life looks very different then it once did. Addiction can effect anyone at anytime including you, your friends, and family. We need to judge much less and help much more when it comes to this serious problem.
Bones
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 4:02 p.m.
Ridiculous law? Overzealous prosecutor? How is that guy who bought, carried, mixed and handed heroin to the deceased woman. Any different than letting someone you know drive home from your party to intoxicated to drive and that person kills someone? You, me and everyone else is responsible for all party goers. But for a lawyer knowingling breaking the law buy getting the drug, and then helping in all other phases of it's delivery. I say send him to prison.
Renee Badall
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 2:34 p.m.
~ an equal crime here is that a competitive and otherwise brilliant mind lost its ability to make real and rational decisions due to a series of bad choices to use rugs.
Ricebrnr
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 1:40 p.m.
what?!?!? Over zealous, knee jerk prohibitionary laws known to fail? No way!
DagnyJ
Mon, Jul 5, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.
Ridiculous law, overzealous prosecutor.