United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Suicide-text girlfriend conviction will have national ramifications
Source:
NY Post
URL Source: http://nypost.com/2017/06/16/suicid ... l-have-national-ramifications/
Published: Jun 16, 2017
Author: Julia Marsh
Post Date: 2017-06-16 20:13:48 by cranky
Keywords: None
Views: 6019
Comments: 31
Top Massachusetts attorneys have mixed opinions about the involuntary manslaughter conviction of Michelle Carter, but they agree on one thing — the ruling has caused a seismic shift in the intersection of technology and the law. “The decision will be shaping the way that future prosecutors handle these types of cases,” said Boston-based criminal defense lawyer Joseph Simons. Michelle Carter, then 17, told her 18-year-old boyfriend Conrad Roy III to “get back in” his truck as it filled with carbon monoxide in 2014. Judge Lawrence Moniz found Friday that Carter’s instructions “constituted wanton and reckless conduct.” Judge Moniz may have set a dangerous precedent with his decision, said longtime Quincy, Mass. attorney Bob Harnais. “You open up the door to a direction where words now can amount to weapons, this is absolutely all new territory” Harnais said. “Is she a criminal because she didn’t talk him out of it? That’s a big jump,” Harnais said. Another Massachusetts defense lawyer, J. Drew Segadelli, applauded the judge for his “careful consideration” of Carter’s damning text message to Roy to “get back in the” vehicle. “That was his lynchpin where he indicated that the behavior was wanton, he’s inferring intentional, and as such he found her guilty,” Segadelli said. Local attorney Kevin Reddington, who was in the courtroom when the judge read his verdict, said the judge gave a “very well reasoned decision that is consistent with the law.” Reddington predicted that an appeal will be an “uphill battle” because the state’s highest court has already ruled that Carter was “virtually” if not “physically” present at her boyfriend’s suicide through her text messages and phone calls. If the decision is upheld the first-of-its kind case will have major national ramifications, Reddington said. 
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
#1. To: cranky (#0)
I think the USSC will eventually strike this down.
I'm not so sure. Where is the federal constitutional issue here? I doubt SCOTUS will think it even has jurisdiction over this case, and won't hear the appeal. This one will be finally decided by the Massachusetts Supremes, and I think they will uphold the conviction. Am I correct in seeing this as having been a bench trial? I can see why the defense chose a trial before a judge rather than a jury. Ugly case to put to a jury.
I think it was shortsighted. They were hoping for a lenient judge. They would almost certainly fare better on appeal if it had been a jury trial. Maybe nolu has some insights into this case. He probably has been watching this one. I wouldn't bet that the USSC will go along with murder-by-text. It's not like she was a crime boss ordering underlings to murder someone. I can see charging someone with a crime like failure to protect a mentally unfit and vulnerable person or failure to report attempted suicide or such. But not murder. Just because we don't like this heartless little bitch doesn't make her a murderer. So should we consider her iPhone a murder weapon? Is that really your position?
Manslaughter is a crime under state law, not federal. On what basis would the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction in this case? I don't think the Supremes CAN hear the case. There's no constitutional issue. This is a state law issue. Massachusetts Supremes are the final court of appeal here.
NRO: In Massachusetts, we just saw a textbook example of how bad facts (in this case, horrific facts) can make bad law. Here’s the Washington Post with the details: In a landmark case, a Massachusetts judge has ruled that Michelle Carter, who urged her boyfriend through phone calls and text messages to kill himself, is responsible for his death. Bristol County Juvenile Court Judge Lawrence Moniz announced Friday that Carter, 20, is guilty of involuntary manslaughter after placing Conrad Roy III in a situation that led to his suicide in 2014. There is no question that Carter behaved terribly. In fact, her conduct was unconscionable, and she certainly played a key role in an absolutely heartbreaking death: Roy, 18, and Carter, who was 17 at the time, had been texting about death in the days and weeks leading up to the tragedy, according to court records. In one message, Carter told him: “You’re finally going to be happy in heaven. No more pain. It’s okay to be scared and it’s normal. I mean, you’re about to die.” Moniz, however, focused on Roy’s final moments when he wavered, stepping out of the truck — and Carter told him to “Get back in.” The judge said that though Carter knew Roy was in trouble, she took no action. “She admits in a subsequent text that she did nothing — she did not call the police or Mr. Roy’s family,” Moniz said in court. “Finally, she did not issue a simple additional instruction: ‘Get out of the truck.’” I see two serious problems with this verdict — one moral, the other legal. First, Conrad Roy is responsible for his death. To argue that Carter committed manslaughter is to diminish Roy’s moral agency. It denies his free will. It’s wrong to deny compassion to someone so troubled that they’d attempt suicide, but we can’t move so far in the other direction that we race to find who’s “really” to blame when a person voluntarily takes their own life. It’s still an act of self-murder, and while Carter undoubtedly played a persuasive role, I can’t imagine where we will draw the line. Will we prosecute mean people for manslaughter when troubled teens kill themselves? Second, there are real First Amendment implications with this verdict. Carter’s actions were reprehensible, but she was sharing with him thoughts and opinions that he may have found persuasive but had the capacity to reject. A legal argument that renders otherwise-protected speech unlawful because it actually persuades would blast a hole in First Amendment jurisprudence. When a young man dies — especially under these circumstances — the desire to hold someone accountable is entirely understandable. But the law can’t and shouldn’t try to right every wrong. Michelle Carter should go free. You may be comfortable with letting a county juvenile court judge in loony Massachusetts redefine the First Amendment to turn text messages into murder weapons. I'm not.
It's not a question of me. I don't think the Supreme Court will take the case, for the reasons I stated. As far as "will we prosecute mean people for manslaughter when troubled teens kill themselves?" It might come to that, yes. People are getting sick of the bullying and the deaths from bullying, and more and more teeth and stick are being applied. In America there has not historically been a duty to aid. In France and other countries, there long has been. We seem to be moving in that direction, and as we do, there's going to be less and less room for bullies. Again, these are the facts, completely stripped of any emotion or opinion on my part.
There are no replies to Comment # 10. End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: Tooconservative (#1)
I think the USSC will eventually strike this down.
#5. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#4)
Am I correct in seeing this as having been a bench trial? I can see why the defense chose a trial before a judge rather than a jury. Ugly case to put to a jury.
#6. To: Tooconservative (#5)
(Edited)
#9. To: Vicomte13 (#6)
Since she was 17 at the time, this case was heard in a juvenile court. You have to wonder what sentence can be handed down now that she has been convicted. A Sad and Terrible Verdict in Massachusetts
David French
#10. To: Tooconservative (#9)
You may be comfortable with letting a county juvenile court judge in loony Massachusetts redefine the First Amendment to turn text messages into murder weapons. I'm not.
Replies to Comment # 10.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]