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: 6481
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 # 18.
#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.
I expect her defense will start with First Amendment issues. I'd expect they'd go for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth as well. Anyway these are the lowhanging fruit that seem obvious.
And I expect the Supremes would look at that and say that the First Amendment protects political speech and public speech from legal action to restrict it. It does not protect speech that is part of a conspiracy to commit a crime. It does not protect fighting words and words encouraging mayhem and injury. Also, the Supremes may well decide that the Massachusetts Supreme Court has appropriate jurisdiction to rule on any First Amendment actions along with the other issues raised. The Supreme Court can hear First Amendment issues, but so can every other court. I don't think the Supremes will consider the First Amendment to be an issue here. A prison term is not cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of manslaughter. I don't think the Supremes will give that argument a hearing. Seems obvious to me, and I expect to the Supremes, that there's no federal jurisdiction here. This is a state case arising under state law, without constitutional issues. There's no death penalty at stake here. So I expect that the Federal Supremes will never hear this case, and that the Minnesota Supremes will decide the case.
I do not see any national ramifications. It is a matter of Massachusetts law. It does not seem very novel at all, other than she was not physically present. I do not see how that would make any difference. Attempted suicide is a crime in some jurisdictions, but not in others. Some jurisdictions hold an attempted suicide which kills an innocent bystander or would-be rescuer to be murder, others manslaughter, others as no crime. Some jurisdictions hold it to be murder for one person to persuade or aid another to commit suicide; some (by statute) make it manslaughter or a separate crime. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
We see down the same sightline on this. As far as my personal opinion goes on this case, I don't really care what happens to her. Really dumb boy meets mean idiot bitch and kills himself over it. Happens every day. It's too bad for the families. The only interesting part is that she urged him to do it, and was held accountable for that. We often like to say, in our society, that free speech does not mean free of consequences. She spoke as she pleased. What she spoke was objectively evil. Something bad happened. People with greater power than she had took umbrage and imposed consequences on her for her evil speech. He's dead, and now she will suffer. My "Give a Shit" meter remains pegged at zero, frankly. The IMPLICATIONS of the case, that people who urge other people to kill themselves, while they are actively killing themselves. That's not "free speech" that I am willing to "fight to the death" to protect the right of somebody to say. In fact, I'm not willing to fight AT ALL for her right to do that. When people assemble below some poor tortured soul on a ledge and start shouting "Jump! Jump! Jump!" , in real life, I am fine with the police pepper spraying them and bashing their teeth in with a baton to instantly silence that speech. And I don't think there is any "slippery slope" between that and rounding people up for supporting Trump. I think, rather, that that "slope" is on a different mountain pointed a whole different direction. I'm not willing to fight for somebody's "right" to be an evil bitch and coax some callow boy she knows is in love with her into committing suicide. In fact, I'm happy to see her prosecuted and punished. They say that bad cases make bad law. In this case, I think the justice system got it exactly right. She IS guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The "mercy" in this case is that the judge found her a juvenile instead of an adult. Advance the ages by 15 years and the bitch does hard time, AS SHE SHOULD.
The judge had no choice. Massachusetts used to consider all juveniles being tried for murder as adults. After a USSC case 4-5 years back, they had to change how they handled juvenile murder cases in the state.
#19. To: Tooconservative (#18)
Good.
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)
#7. To: Vicomte13, nolu chan (#6)
On what basis would the US Supreme Court have jurisdiction in this case?
#8. To: Tooconservative (#7)
I expect her defense will start with First Amendment issues. I'd expect they'd go for cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth as well. Anyway these are the lowhanging fruit that seem obvious.
#14. To: Vicomte13, Tooconservative (#8)
Suicide. Self-destruction; the deliberate termination of one's own life.
#15. To: nolu chan (#14)
#18. To: Vicomte13 (#15)
The "mercy" in this case is that the judge found her a juvenile instead of an adult.
Replies to Comment # 18.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 18.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]