Michelle Carter found guilty in landmark texting suicide case
Bob McGovern Friday, June 16, 2017
Credit: Pool
Michelle Carter reacts as she listens to Judge Lawrence Moniz before he announces his verdict today. Her attorney Joseph Cataldo is seated next to her. She was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the suicide of Conrad Roy III. Photo by Glenn Silva / Fairhaven Neighborhood News / POOL
prevnext
COMMENTS
Michelle Carter Guilty In Texting Suicide Trial
CBS Boston
TAUNTON — Michelle Carter, the Plainville woman who urged her high school boyfriend to kill himself through a series of texts and phone calls, was responsible for his death, according to a judge who today found her guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the landmark case.
Carter, who wept as the vedict was read this morning, was on trial for the summer 2014 death of Conrad Roy III, then 18. The verdict in the case, which drew national attention, is likely to reverberate across the country and potentially reshape criminal law relating to virtual communications.
RELATED ARTICLES
McGovern: Michelle Carter case set to make legal history
The Latest: Prosecutor: No winner in text suicide conviction
Still critical, Rep. Steve Scalise to undergo more surgeries
Carter, who was 17 at the time of Roy’s death, did not take the stand in her own defense. The only time she spoke during the trial was when she tearfully waived her right to a jury last week. She will be sentenced on Aug. 3.
Tried in juvenile court, Carter was found guilty as a youthful offender.
In the days leading up to his death, she had repeatedly encouraged Roy to kill himself through texts and phone calls.
In one message, Carter texted her classmate, Samantha Boardman, that she could have stopped Roy’s suicide but instead told him to finish the job.
Complete coverage: Michelle Carter case
“Sam, his death is my fault like honestly I could have stopped him,” Carter texted on Sept. 15, 2014. “I was on the phone with him and he got out of the car because it was working and he got scared and I (expletive) told him to get back in Sam because I knew he would do it all over again the next day and I couldn’t have him live the way he was living anymore I couldn’t do it I wouldn’t let him.”
That message was key to Moniz's decision, who ruled that instructing Roy to get back in the truck was "reckless and wanton conduct" that created an environment that Carter knew would cause harm.
Prosecutors argued that Carter’s texts and calls to Roy on the night of July 12, 2014, were enough to make her “virtually present” in a criminal context. That language came directly from a 2016 Supreme Judicial Court case in which the justices unanimously found that there was probable cause for Carter to be tried for Roy’s death.
To convict, Judge Lawrence Moniz had to find Carter guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. She is, he ruled today.
Bristol prosecutors Katie Rayburn and Maryclare Flynn argued that, in keeping with the SJC ruling, in this new digital age crimes can be committed even when someone isn’t physically near a victim.
“Back years ago in order to have a relationship you had to actually see somebody — or at a minimum talk on the phone. That is no longer required,” Rayburn said in her impassioned closing on Tuesday. “People fall in love via the internet and via text. People bully via text and the internet. You can encourage someone to die via text, and you can commit a crime via text.”
However, in ruling in the trial -- widely regarded as potentially setting a precedent for 21st century criminal law in a social media age -- Moniz cited a 200-year-old case: Commonwealth vs. Bowen, in which a prisoner "repeatedly and frequently advised and urged (a fellow prisoner) to destroy himself." The prisoner in the adjacent cell hung himself the night before he was to be executed, and the defendant was found guilty in 1816.
"The verdict represents the application of centuries old common law principles and the interplay with today's widespread use of communication through social media," said Martin W Healy chief legal counsel to the Massachusetts Bar Association in a statement. "The case will have national implications in as a clarion call that seemingly remote and distant communications will not insulate individuals from heinous acts that could rise to the level of criminal culpability. The defendant's fate was sealed through the use of her own words."
The case was closely watched by civil liberties advocates, for its ramifications regarding the application of the First Amendment.
"Mr. Roy's death is a horrible tragedy, but Ms. Carter's conviction expands Massachusetts criminal law and imperils free speech," said Matthew Segal, legal director of the Massachusetts ACLU., after the verdict.
Carter’s defense team had unsuccessfully argued that Roy’s death was a suicide, not a homicide, in a defense that revolved around issues of mental illness.
“He was suicidal in 2011, long before Michelle Carter came along. He was suicidal then,” defense attorney Joseph Cataldo said in his closing argument. “She has some significant issues herself. He’s now bringing her along on this sad journey of his.”
Cataldo also argued that prosecutors were being selective in choosing which Carter texts they accepted at face value. On one hand, prosecutors called Carter an attention-seeking liar when she texted friends about cutting herself.
On the other hand, much of the case hinged on the truthfulness of Carter’s text to Boardman, which prosecutors claimed was a moment of honesty, Cataldo noted.
The defense also claimed Carter was involuntarily intoxicated on the antidepressant Celexa at the time of the crime. Dr. Peter Breggin, a paid expert witness for the defense, argued that Carter had a propensity to be helpful that was warped by the drug.
She blindly decided to help her boyfriend kill himself while lost in an intoxicated daze, Breggin testified.
Prosecutors, however, argued that Breggin was a hired gun who has an ax to grind with the pharmaceutical industry.
After the verdict was read, Cataldo told reporters he is "disappointed" in the decision but won't comment until after sentencing.
The case was Moniz's last before retirement.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
It wasn't like she was standing in front of him and forcing him.
This is a bad precedent.
__________________
A flock of flirting flamingos is pure, passionate, pink pandemonium-a frenetic flamingle-mangle-a discordant discotheque of delirious dancing, flamboyant feathers, and flamingo lingo.
So it is ripe for successful appeal. First, you need to read the text messages she sent him. One was when he was doing it and got out of the car because it was starting to work. He got out and texted her that he was scared because it was working and she told him to get back in the car and do it. Then she texted a friend after that and said "I am responsible for his death, I told him to get back in the car".
Second: But the judge used a case from Worcester Ma (HI Trudy) about a fire in an abandoned building where two homeless people were known to live. 6 firefighters died in that fire trying to save the couple, the homeless couple inadvertently started the fire and ran from the building but didn't call for help even though they had a cell phone. They were tried for invol manslaughter and were acquitted on appeal. So not sure why the judge used that guilty verdict in the original trial as precedence.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
She could get anything from probation...up to 20 years.
My gut feeling is, she won't do any time.
I think she will do at least one year. This is Juvie and I think the judge will sentence her the max but with time off for good behavior, probably tell her if she attends college classes and therapy in that year year her sentence will be commuted.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
What's next, you get in an argument with someone and tell them to drop dead, and they have a heart attack b/c they are so upset? No. He took his own life.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
What's next, you get in an argument with someone and tell them to drop dead, and they have a heart attack b/c they are so upset? No. He took his own life.
Exactly
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
It's a common response to a chronically suicidal individual. Make a choice, already! Live or die, just pick one and stick with it. Stop jerking yourself around. It sounds like she said some of that (her text ends with ... he'd just do it again tomorrow, or some such). Sounds like he picked.
It's a common response to a chronically suicidal individual. Make a choice, already! Live or die, just pick one and stick with it. Stop jerking yourself around. It sounds like she said some of that (her text ends with ... he'd just do it again tomorrow, or some such). Sounds like he picked.
Yep, that is exactly what her response was to his repeated threats of suicide. Her text messages are disturbing to say the least, but I think the two of them were so wrapped up in the suicide discussion they lost site of real life.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
It's a common response to a chronically suicidal individual. Make a choice, already! Live or die, just pick one and stick with it. Stop jerking yourself around. It sounds like she said some of that (her text ends with ... he'd just do it again tomorrow, or some such). Sounds like he picked.
This should absolutely NEVER be a "common response" to anyone voicing the desire to commit suicide, once or chronically. NEVER! Are we really this desensitized?
It's a common response to a chronically suicidal individual. Make a choice, already! Live or die, just pick one and stick with it. Stop jerking yourself around. It sounds like she said some of that (her text ends with ... he'd just do it again tomorrow, or some such). Sounds like he picked.
This should absolutely NEVER be a "common response" to anyone voicing the desire to commit suicide, once or chronically. NEVER! Are we really this desensitized?
It can be if a person is using threats of suicide to emotionally blackmail and manipulate people. Of course - my reaction is to call an ambulance and the police. Lock them away on a 72 hour hold should get the wheels started for the help they need, or call their damn bluff.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
It's a common response to a chronically suicidal individual. Make a choice, already! Live or die, just pick one and stick with it. Stop jerking yourself around. It sounds like she said some of that (her text ends with ... he'd just do it again tomorrow, or some such). Sounds like he picked.
This should absolutely NEVER be a "common response" to anyone voicing the desire to commit suicide, once or chronically. NEVER! Are we really this desensitized?
I agree with Cheerios, I do understand where tig is coming from, but this girl should have call 911.
It's a common response to a chronically suicidal individual. Make a choice, already! Live or die, just pick one and stick with it. Stop jerking yourself around. It sounds like she said some of that (her text ends with ... he'd just do it again tomorrow, or some such). Sounds like he picked.
This should absolutely NEVER be a "common response" to anyone voicing the desire to commit suicide, once or chronically. NEVER! Are we really this desensitized?
It can be if a person is using threats of suicide to emotionally blackmail and manipulate people. Of course - my reaction is to call an ambulance and the police. Lock them away on a 72 hour hold should get the wheels started for the help they need, or call their damn bluff.
It's not desensitization; it probably comes from a place of long-term push and pull and 'it will be your fault if I ....' that goes on and causes so much pain and distress for others that it needs to be stopped. Calling the bluff is often the way to stop the manipulation. It happens more than you know. I won't say that I know that that is what this girl is coming from, as it doesn't seem to come from a place of frustration with a loved one, so much as it does torment. But, calling the bluff happens more than you know.
I actually think it was the right verdict because when he got out of the car she told him to get back in. She could have talked him out of it but instead consciously talked him back into it. There was intent there. She is a nasty piece of work. That & in every picture from court she had a smirk on her face. There was no remorse.
It's a common response to a chronically suicidal individual. Make a choice, already! Live or die, just pick one and stick with it. Stop jerking yourself around. It sounds like she said some of that (her text ends with ... he'd just do it again tomorrow, or some such). Sounds like he picked.
I thought this too. Not that I think it was a good thing to do. But her being mentally ill as Well, I can imagine Being worn down from constant talk of suicide.
I disagree with the verdict.
-- Edited by Mary Zombie on Monday 19th of June 2017 08:53:42 AM
I actually think it was the right verdict because when he got out of the car she told him to get back in. She could have talked him out of it but instead consciously talked him back into it. There was intent there. She is a nasty piece of work. That & in every picture from court she had a smirk on her face. There was no remorse.
I totally agree. She was getting something out of his death and that was attention. She could have reached out to his family or law enforcement if she really cared about him living. If not for her, I believe he would be alive today.
I actually think it was the right verdict because when he got out of the car she told him to get back in. She could have talked him out of it but instead consciously talked him back into it. There was intent there. She is a nasty piece of work. That & in every picture from court she had a smirk on her face. There was no remorse.
I totally agree. She was getting something out of his death and that was attention. She could have reached out to his family or law enforcement if she really cared about him living. If not for her, I believe he would be alive today.
I disagree with the bolded; he would have survived that night, but then tried again.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
I actually think it was the right verdict because when he got out of the car she told him to get back in. She could have talked him out of it but instead consciously talked him back into it. There was intent there. She is a nasty piece of work. That & in every picture from court she had a smirk on her face. There was no remorse.
I totally agree. She was getting something out of his death and that was attention. She could have reached out to his family or law enforcement if she really cared about him living. If not for her, I believe he would be alive today.
I disagree with the bolded; he would have survived that night, but then tried again.
We don't know if he would succeed the next time. He might have gotten the help he needed if she had called 911.
I actually think it was the right verdict because when he got out of the car she told him to get back in. She could have talked him out of it but instead consciously talked him back into it. There was intent there. She is a nasty piece of work. That & in every picture from court she had a smirk on her face. There was no remorse.
I think that was the biggest factor. The other talk was talk. However, when she was actively involved while he was in the act and encouraged him to get back into the car knowing that had rigged the car to cause death, that really does take it to a whole other level.
This girl was a teen herself, on anti-depressants. Why is she held to a higher standard than he is himself?
Possibly because HE didn't badger HER to kill herself...
flan
Words don't kill people. He made the decision that took his life. And you don't know that her calling 911 would have saved him, at all.
At least she would have tried. He was sick and not thinking rationally. Yes we don't know if calling 911 would have saved him, but we dont know if it wouldn't have saved him either.
This girl was a teen herself, on anti-depressants. Why is she held to a higher standard than he is himself?
Possibly because HE didn't badger HER to kill herself...
flan
Words don't kill people. He made the decision that took his life. And you don't know that her calling 911 would have saved him, at all.
At least she would have tried. He was sick and not thinking rationally. Yes we don't know if calling 911 would have saved him, but we dont know if it wouldn't have saved him either.
So, bad people are just guilty. There are a whole lot more people that should be in jail, then.
The slippery slope on this is terrible.
I think this will be overturned on appeal.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
If your spouse has a heart attack and you don't call 911, are you responsible?
flan
That is different. A spouse has a special relationship with the person AND a heart attack is not the purposeful action of another that they themselves could prevent. That is the difference. That boy could have prevented his own suicide by not taking his life. She does not have a higher duty than he does.
__________________
LawyerLady
I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
She isn't a spouse so that is a completely different situation. But, that is a good question by flan.
However, she had issues as well so why do his issues trump her issues. I do think her telling him Get Back in at the point where there was a toxic environment is really the crux of the issue.
If she handed him a loaded gun and told him it was loaded and told him to shoot himself and he did would she be liable for that? This is a very tricky case.
She isn't a spouse so that is a completely different situation. But, that is a good question by flan. However, she had issues as well so why do his issues trump her issues. I do think her telling him Get Back in at the point where there was a toxic environment is really the crux of the issue. If she handed him a loaded gun and told him it was loaded and told him to shoot himself and he did would she be liable for that? This is a very tricky case.
Not only is she not a spouse, she wasn't even physically present. We can not let electronic communication come inbetween logic of law.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.
Ultimately the choice to end his life was on him. He had any number of options. He could have called his family, 911, the police, etc. He could have hung up on her and walked away. He had other options to save himself.
If your spouse has a heart attack and you don't call 911, are you responsible?
flan
That is different. A spouse has a special relationship with the person AND a heart attack is not the purposeful action of another that they themselves could prevent. That is the difference. That boy could have prevented his own suicide by not taking his life. She does not have a higher duty than he does.
Why? Because of a piece of paper? Substitute neighbor, then.
To me, it's about taking responsibility as a human being.
No Flan, no on thinks she is innocent. But lets move on to the law thing as that is what we are discussing. The girl is a ice cold hearted individual . She broke no laws but we all agree she is a fkin screwed up bitch.
__________________
Sometimes you're the windshield, and sometimes you're the bug.