In 2014, when Michelle Carter, Defendant, was 17 years old, she encouraged her boyfriend, Conrad Roy III to take his own life via text message, both in the days leading up to his death and as he was attempting suicide. Roy drove alone to a parking lot, where he filled his truck with carbon monoxide. She was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in 2017, in a Massachusetts juvenile court. She received a 2 years in prison and subsequently appealed her sentence. The judge allowed her to stay out of jail while on the appeal based on the fact that she had no criminal record and was receiving mental-health treatment while out on bond. Defendant appealed to the Massachusetts Supreme Court. Justice Scott Kafker in upholding the lower courts decision, stated the following After she convinced him to get back into the carbon- monoxide-filled truck, she did absolutely nothing to help him: She did not call for help or tell him to get out of the truck as she listened to him choke and die. On July 8, 2019, Defendant filed a petition for review in the United States Supreme Court arguing that her conviction violated the US Constitutions First Amendment free speech protections and Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. Defendant states that she did not cause Conrad Roys tragic death and should not be held criminally responsible for his suicide. Specifically, Defendant argues that her conviction violates the US Constitutions First Amendment free speech protections and the Fifth Amendments Due Process Clause, which guarantees clarity and consistency in the law. Defendants petition argues in part, that Massachusetts ignored the Supreme Courts warning that there need to be reasonably clear guidelines for law enforcement officials and triers of fact in order to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Can a series of subtle hints suffice for criminal liability? When do words cross the line from permissible, encouragement, advice, or persuasion to prohibited coercion, Defendants petition states. The result of her conviction, Defendant further argues …the law will be applied in an arbitrary and unpredictable fashion across the country, allowing prosecutors to decide when words become a crime rather than following clear guidelines. This is precisely what the Due Process Clause is meant to prevent. Put simply, a vague law is no law at all. Defendant requests the high court to review her case for the sake of consistency and uniformity nationwide, arguing that her conviction establishes a bad precedent that promotes convictions based on the subjective heinousness of a defendants words as opposed to established legal standards. Write a paper that addresses the following: 1) the facts in the case; 2) charges filed against the Defendant; 3) procedural history; 4) issues presented along with an analysis of the rule of law; and 5) conclusion of the case.
