NORTHAMPTON — A homeless man who faces multiple charges related to a January arrest saw one of those charges dismissed in Northampton District Court Friday morning.
The arrest followed a sequence of events that began Jan. 18 after Eric Matlock allegedly yelled obscenities at a police officer in the Haymarket Cafe.
In a separate trial last year, Matlock was found not guilty of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and assault and battery on a police officer, charges that originated from Matlock being arrested and pepper-sprayed by police after protesting on the steps of City Hall.
Matlock was represented by Northampton attorney Dana Goldblatt, in that trial, and she also represented him Friday.
The six charges Matlock faced originally following his January arrest were disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, assault and battery on a police officer, intimidation of a witness, marijuana possession with intent to distribute, and malicious damage to a motor vehicle.
Goldblatt attempted to get the charges of marijuana distribution charge and intimidation of a witness dismissed in Friday’s hearing before Judge Maureen Walsh.
Before the hearing, the prosecution dropped the charge of malicious damage to a motor vehicle.
In making her argument for dismissing the marijuana distribution charge, Goldblatt produced eight individually packaged candy bars in court, a reference to the eight individual packages of marijuana allegedly found on Matlock.
She said that Matlock having the marijuana on him, as well as more than $300 in cash, wasn’t evidence of him selling marijuana but simply was the result of him being homeless. She also said that because he is homeless, he is not able to open a bank account.
“Does the legalization of marijuana apply to people who are houseless ?” she said. “If having your marijuana and your money on you at the same time is probable cause that you’re intending to distribute your marijuana then effectively the legalization of marijuana wouldn’t apply to anybody who can’t afford to have a bank account.”
Goldblatt also said there were not enough specific facts alleged to support the charge of intimidating a witness.
Assistant District Attorney Andrew Covington, meanwhile, said Andrew Kohl, the officer who made the arrest, believed the marijuana was packaged for individual sale based on his training. And on the witness intimidation charge, he repeated Kohl’s allegations that in previous encounters, as well as in Haymarket on the day of the arrest, he believed Matlock had tried to intimidate him,
In the end, Walsh denied the motion to dismiss on the marijuana charge, but agreed to dismiss the charge of intimidation of a witness.
Matlock’s next appearance in the case will be on March 20.
Bera Dunau can be reached at bdunau@gazettenet.com.