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: 6038
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 # 17.
#11. To: cranky (#0)
This means that if you tell sombody to stick it up their ass, and they do, you're responsible for their doing it.
There is an added circumstance here that she knew he was unstable. If you know someone is unstable, has repeatedly threatened to stick it up his ass, and you successfully goad said person into sticking it up his ass, your own ass may be in legal jeopardy.
She was herself a mental case. Like him, they had both been in psychiatric hospitals for self-harming. She was medicated. The two had met briefly while both were in Florida a few years back. After that, they met very briefly a couple of times in person. I don't find it convincing that she held so much influence over him. I can see other charges for which she was guilty. But manslaugter? No way. Not even Massachusetts is that fucked up.
#20. To: Tooconservative, Vicomte13 (#17)
I do not know what she argued in court, but that seems a better argument for a jury trial than a bench trial. With a jury only 1 out of 12 need be persuaded to accept the argument. As a legal argument, I see it as a fail if by mental case you infer the legal definition of being unable to tell the difference between right and wrong. I could see it as a possible argument for diminished capacity. Some states recognize diminished capacity and some do not. "A successful defense of diminished capacity will usually result in conviction of a lesser offense, not in acquittal." Stgeven H. Gifis, Law Dictionary, Second Edition, boldface as in original, blue font added. DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY see diminished capacity. I just looked to see how Massachusetts views diminished capacity and it appears that argumment was not available in this case. http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/439/439mass84.html [...] a. Withdrawal of a defense of lack of criminal responsibility. The defendant now claims, in essence, that he was denied a meaningful defense because trial counsel abandoned a McHoul defense. Commonwealth v. McHoul, 352 Mass. 544 (1967). [Note 9] In his opening statement, trial counsel conceded that the defendant killed the victims, [Note 10] but indicated that he was not criminally responsible. [Note 11] Trial counsel presented two expert witnesses in order to show that the defendant either was not responsible for Page 91 his actions or suffered from a diminished capacity at the time of the murders. The first witness, Dr. Chet Lesniak, was hired primarily to conduct a battery of neuropsychological tests on the defendant and to report the results to the other expert witness, Dr. Marc Whaley. Dr. Whaley was hired as the primary defense expert witness to use Dr. Lesniak's results to form an opinion whether the defendant was criminally responsible for the murders. Unfortunately for the defendant, his own expert witness opined that, although Dr. Lesniak's tests indicated a possible organic brain disorder, the defendant was not completely lacking in criminal responsibility. Once it was determined by the defendant's own witness that he would not meet the two-pronged McHoul test, an alternative strategy for counsel was to pursue a claim of diminished capacity. Trial counsel attempted to show that the defendant had a diminished mental capacity at the time he stabbed the victims, thereby "render[ing] him unable either to form the specific intent to kill or to premeditate." Commonwealth v. Laurore, 437 Mass. 65 , 70 (2002). See Commonwealth v. Gould, 380 Mass. 672 , 683 (1980). While there is no diminished capacity defense in Massachusetts, the Gould case stands for the proposition that the defense may produce psychiatric evidence that would allow a jury to consider whether the defendant lacked the mental capacity to premeditate the killing. Id. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 426 Mass. 725 , 730 (1998); Commonwealth v. Parker, 420 Mass. 242 , 245 n.3 (1995) (there is no "diminished capacity" defense in Commonwealth); Commonwealth v. Grey, 399 Mass. 469 , 470 n.2 (1987). Moreover, malice is a necessary element of both murder in the first and second degrees, and "[m]alice is established by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant specifically intended either to kill the alleged victim or to cause grievous bodily harm." Commonwealth v. Azar, 435 Mass. 675 , 681-682 (2002). Malice may also be inferred "if, in the circumstances known to the defendant, a reasonably prudent person would Page 92 have known that according to common experience there was a plain and strong likelihood that death would follow the contemplated act." Id. at 682, quoting Commonwealth v. Grey, supra at 470 n.1. These are commonly referred to as the three prongs of malice. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Sirois, 437 Mass. 845 , 858 (2002). Only the first prong of malice, specific intent to kill, may satisfy murder in the first degree by deliberate premeditation. Commonwealth v. Simpson, 434 Mass. 570 , 588 (2001). Commonwealth v. Judge, 420 Mass. 433 , 441 (1995). While the first two prongs of malice have a specific intent requirement that may be negated by mental impairment, the third prong has a knowledge requirement that may also be negated by a defendant's mental impairment. See Commonwealth v. Hardy, 426 Mass. 725 , 730 (1998), citing Commonwealth v. Sires, 413 Mass. 292 , 299 (1992) (evidence of intent and knowledge relevant to whether murder was committed at all). [Note 12] Page 93 Trial counsel was therefore faced with a situation where he had experts that would testify toward a diminished capacity claim, but not lack of responsibility. His tactical decision to focus on diminished capacity was therefore logical and cannot be seen as depriving the defendant of an adequate defense. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. LaCava, 438 Mass. 708 , 716-718 (2003). The judge did instruct the jury on lack of responsibility as outlined by the McHoul case, as defense attempted to elicit lay witness testimony regarding the defendant's behavior in the days leading up to the murders. See Commonwealth v. Guadalupe, 401 Mass. 372 (1987) (expert testimony not required to raise insanity defense). Finally, as the judge found in denying the defendant's motion for a new trial, counsel's closing argument "did not constitute an abandonment of the insanity defense," however he did shift "the emphasis away from that defense, which was supported only by lay witness testimony, to the more promising one of inability to premeditate." Accordingly, we do not second guess this tactical decision of trial counsel, and find no substantial likelihood of a miscarriage of justice. Diminished capacity, per se, is not a defense in Massachusetts. The above was a premeditated murder case where an argument was attempted to show the defendant's diminished capacity rendered him unable to premeditate the crime, a required element of proof for the crime charged. In the instant case regarding involuntary manslaughter premeditation is not a factor. Diminished capacity would not be a defense in Massachusetts, and it would not show an absence of one of the elements of the charge which resulted in conviction. I reckon this may be why a bench trial was preferred. An argument of diminished capacity, just for the purpose of dazzling the jury, probably would not have been permitted. She and her lawyer probably did as good as they could do, under the circumstances. Being medicated may have been a mitigating factor, but not an argument for acquittal.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/LatestIf the decision is upheld the first-of-its kind case will have major national ramifications, Reddington said.
#13. To: rlk, cranky (#11)
This means that if you tell sombody to stick it up their ass, and they do, you're responsible for their doing it.
#17. To: nolu chan (#13)
There is an added circumstance here that she knew he was unstable. If you know someone is unstable, has repeatedly threatened to stick it up his ass, and you successfully goad said person into sticking it up his ass, your own ass may be in legal jeopardy.
Replies to Comment # 17. She was herself a mental case. Like him, they had both been in psychiatric hospitals for self-harming. She was medicated.
DIMINISHED CAPACITY in criminal law, the inability to have the mens rea required for the commission of a crime. 79 Cal. Rptr. 155, 161. The states which allow the defense treat it variously. Some limit it to crimes requiring a specific intent; others recognize it in crimes involving different degrees. About half the states do not recognize it as a separate defense, but limit questions concerning the mental state to the defense of insanity. 30 Vand. L. Rev. 213-15 (1977). A successful defense of diminished capacity will usually result in conviction of a lesser offense, not in acquittal. LaFave & Scott, Criminal Law 326 (1972). Compare insanity.
COMMONWEALTH vs. BRIAN J. GABORIAULT.
439 Mass. 84
January 10, 2003 - March 31, 2003
Bristol County
Present: MARSHALL, C.J., GREANEY, IRELAND, SPINA, & COWIN, JJ.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 17.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]