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: 6200
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 # 3.
#2. To: cranky (#0)
I agree. They were words. She didn't kill him. He did that all by himself. He could have stopped at any time. Sure, she had a moral obligation to talk him out of it. But not a legal one ... in my opinion. I can see this ruling being applied to bullying, hate speech and sexual harassment. Some whacko listens to Rush, kills someone, and Rush is charged with involuntary manslaughter. Or as an accessory to murder. What about a guy standing on a ledge threatening to jump and the crowd chants, "Jump! Jump!" Are they all to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
How about all those Dems on Twitter and Facebook cheering on what the Virginia shooter did trying to kill GOP congressmen? Should they all be charged with conspiracy to commit murder as well through their "virtual presence"? It's daft. I don't think it will stand.
There are no replies to Comment # 3. End Trace Mode for Comment # 3.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest“You open up the door to a direction where words now can amount to weapons, this is absolutely all new territory” Harnais said.
#3. To: misterwhite (#2)
What about a guy standing on a ledge threatening to jump and the crowd chants, "Jump! Jump!" Are they all to be charged with involuntary manslaughter?
Replies to Comment # 3.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]