Michelle Carter’s attorneys filed an emergency motion to extend the stay of her sentence while she appeals her conviction to the US Supreme Court, but it was rejected by the MA State Supreme Court.
This case presented all kinds of issues-free speech, duty to inform of suicide intent and culpability of deliberate failure to do so, etc.
Apparently she will serve her sentence while she appeals to the US Supreme Court, which I understand is actually unusual?By the time the Supreme Court potentially rules in her favor, she will already have served the entire sentence.
I’d be stunned if the Supreme Court actually granted certiorari, i.e., agreed to hear an appeal from the decision. It would be rare for a state court to grant a stay of sentence on the off chance it would be granted. The stated ground for appeal to the Supreme Court is freedom of speech, i.e., the argument is she had a right to tell him to kill himself. The Supreme Court can’t decide that the highest court in Massachusetts wrongfully applied state law even if it did.
I don’t know if that’s clear. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court can only overturn the conviction on some federal ground, which would almost certainly be a constitutional one. That’s why her attorneys are arguing that her conviction violates the right to free speech. The Supreme Court cannot decide that the highest court in Massachusetts, which upheld the conviction, wrongfully applied Massachusetts state law.
I’m sorry she only got 15 months. I admit my attitude is colored by her behavior after his death, which is irrelevant to the actual charge.
Rather than being focused on the encouraging him to kill himself angle (“free speech”), did her behavior violate any state laws regarding duty to report inside knowledge of an impending suicide, or some kind of obstruction related to her lying to the family when they questioned her on his whereabouts? In other words, was she convicted of a crime that had nothing to do with her speech (telling him-repeatedly- to kill himself after he-repeatedly-voiced doubts about whether or not he really wanted to do i)t?
Regardless of the legal matters, this young woman is either a really sick person or a really horrible person. It seems pretty clear she wanted him dead so that she could then receive a lot of attention. That is pretty darn cold blooded and despicable.
Of course, not being a lawyer, I had no idea what the chances were that the US Supreme Court would take this case. To a lay person, it sounds like a compelling case and test of the 1st Amendment.
The Defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter under Massachusetts law.
One approach in Massachusetts would be / could have been to argue that her actions were not covered as criminal activity under any Massachusetts law prohibiting assisted suicide.
I am not familiar with the case, but I wonder whether there is / are any due process issues.
The “free speech” issue reminds me of situations where a person is perched on a ledge 10 stories up & members of the crowd yell “Jump !, Jump !”. Have any of the crowd members committed a crime if the individual jumps to his or her death ? Does it make a difference that the Defendant ordered her boyfriend to get back into his truck ( on the ledge) ?
Were her texts really protected speech? People randomly throw around the term “free speech” but I believe (not being a lawyer) that there are specific definitions, most notably that one cannot be punished for speech against the government etc.
Remember free speech does not allow you to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater!