No. 19-62

Michelle Carter v. Massachusetts

Lower Court: Massachusetts
Docketed: 2019-07-11
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response RequestedResponse WaivedRelisted (2)
Tags: arbitrary-enforcement assisted-suicide common-law criminal-conviction due-process first-amendment free-speech involuntary-manslaughter suicide-encouragement
Key Terms:
AdministrativeLaw FirstAmendment DueProcess Privacy JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether Carter's conviction for involuntary manslaughter, based on words alone, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Michelle Carter’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter in connection with Conrad Roy III’s suicide is unprecedented. Massachusetts is the only state to have affirmed the conviction of a physically absent defendant who encouraged another person to commit suicide with words alone. Before this case, no state had interpreted its common law or enacted an assistedsuicide statute to criminalize such “pure speech,” and no other defendant had been convicted for encouraging another person to take his own life where the defendant neither provided the actual means of death nor physically participated in the suicide. This petition presents the questions whether Carter’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter violated the U.S. Constitution in two distinct ways: 1. Whether Carter’s conviction for involuntary manslaughter, based on words alone, violated the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, because her communications, which were found to have caused Roy’s suicide, did not constitute speech that was “an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute,” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 498 (1949)? 2. Whether Carter’s conviction violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, because in assisted or encouraged suicide cases, the common law of involuntary manslaughter fails to provide reasonably clear guidelines to prevent “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement,” McDonnell v. United States, 136 S.Ct. 2355, 2373 (2016) Gnternal quotations omitted)? ii LIST OF ALL PROCEEDINGS Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter Bristol Juvenile Court New Bedford Division Case No. 15YO01NE Decision Date: September 22, 2015 Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Case No. SJC-12043 Decision Date: July 1, 2016 (App.43a) Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter Bristol Juvenile Court Taunton Session Case No. 15YO01NE Decision Date: June 16, 2017 (App.30a) Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Case No. SJC-12502 Decision Date: February 6, 2019 (App.1a)

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-11
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-09
Reply of petitioner Michelle Carter filed.
2019-11-22
Brief of respondent Commonwealth of Massachusetts in opposition filed.
2019-09-17
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including November 22, 2019.
2019-09-12
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 23, 2019 to November 22, 2019, submitted to The Clerk.
2019-08-22
Response Requested. (Due September 23, 2019)
2019-08-14
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/1/2019.
2019-08-09
Waiver of right of respondent Commonwealth of Massachusetts to respond filed.
2019-07-08
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 12, 2019)
2019-04-29
Application (18A1112) granted by Justice Breyer extending the time to file until July 8, 2019.
2019-04-24
Application (18A1112) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from May 7, 2019 to July 6, 2019, submitted to Justice Breyer.

Attorneys

Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Elizabeth Napier DewarOffice of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Respondent
Elizabeth Napier DewarOffice of the Massachusetts Attorney General, Respondent
Michelle Carter
Daniel N. MarxFick & Marx LLP, Petitioner
Daniel N. MarxFick & Marx LLP, Petitioner