On July 12, 2014, Conrad Roy III was found dead in the trunk of his car outside of a K-mart. He had left the engine running and filled his trunk with carbon monoxide gas. After an investigation, it was found that moments before his death, Roy was having second thoughts, but his girlfriend, Michelle Carter, encouraged him to get back in the trunk through a series of text messages, ultimately leading to Roy’s death. Michelle Carter was a young woman in a toxic relationship with Roy, which inevitably led to deadly consequences. The controversy of this case lies with the text messages Carter sent to Roy minutes before his death and whether her First Amendment rights were infringed upon by using these text messages to convict Carter of manslaughter.
The trial of Michelle Carter detailed the legal question: Did the text messages lead to the death of Conrad Roy, and if so, should it be considered criminal? Through the investigation, there were thousands of messages on the phone of Michelle Carter that were deciphered by the police. They had received a search warrant to look through the messages. After one day, the officers indicated, “if it wasn’t for [Michelle Carter], [Conrad Roy]is alive today.”[i] After these discoveries, a grand jury came with a verdict against Michelle Carter for manslaughter. The text messages released indicated that on the day of the incident, Carter spoke to Roy and stated, “do it today,” “the sooner the better,” and even encouraged Roy to get back into the car moments before when Roy was having doubts. Roy was confirmed to have social anxiety and depression, which seeped into the relationship between Roy and Carter. At the time this case was presented, it was a case of first impression that included no Massachusetts legislation that criminalized the encouragement of suicide. According to the Massachusetts Statute, involuntary manslaughter is: “an unlawful killing unintentionally caused by wanton or reckless conduct.”[ii] The Statute specifically asserts that wanton or reckless conduct, not speech, would prove the crime of involuntary manslaughter. Michelle Carter’s attorney even mentioned that criminalizing speech in this capacity would set a dangerous precedent.[iii] The free speech and ex-post-facto constitutional issues are apparent in this case of first impression. The trial itself focused on Carter’s personal life, including being a lonely person with no friends, her text messages after the fact, and checking in with Roy’s family to see if they could find him. There was evidence presented of photographs of nooses, guns, and even one of Roy pointing a gun at his own head, referencing suicide, all of which Roy sent to Carter. The Prosecution’s argument points to a sense of guilt and some form of intent. The Defense’s case in chief revealed that Roy’s father had assaulted and battered him many times, which led to charges brought. Roy also had a previous suicide attempt before Carter was even involved with Roy. The text messages in this portion of the case revealed that he told Carter that he had voices telling him to kill himself and was a big influence on the four suicide attempts. Roy also had a previous overdose on Acetaminophen that was caused by his mental health issues and was not influenced by Carter. The evidence presented at this trial indicated a long-standing mental health issue with both parties but a sense of convincing on the part of Roy that suicide was the only way for him to get to a happier place. The Court in the case indicated that although Carter was not physically present at the scene of Roy’s death, her words “overc[a]me [the victim’s] willpower to live” and therefore caused the suicide.”[iv]
The underlying issue concerns where the line of free speech ends and how there were no statutory provisions passed at the time of this trial to criminalize this behavior, effectively treating the prosecution charge as an ex post facto law.
The First Amendment memorializes the freedom of speech for every American.[v] The freedom of speech clause of the First Amendment has always protected speech unless it crosses the line into fighting words or calls to violence.[vi] In this case, Carter’s words cannot be definitively proven to be a call to action with the facts of the suicidal ideation already clear and present with Roy. The United States Supreme Court has previously ruled that for speech to be considered fighting words, the words must be directed at an individual in a face-to-face context.[vii] In the Carter case, the government argued that the speech regulated was speech integral to a course of criminal conduct. Based on this definition and the definition of involuntary manslaughter, it is unclear how the pressure of another overpowers a person’s will to live. The Court in Carter is also inconsistent on whether suicide is a crime. The Court uses it as a crime to prove that Carter’s words were in furtherance of a crime, but the suicide itself was not deemed a crime. This inconsistency shows that the regulation is not narrowly tailored to prove a necessary government interest as it attempts to preserve life at the cost of free speech.
On top of the Free Speech issues with this ruling, the verdict created an ex post facto precedent[viii] in the State of Massachusetts. At the time that Carter was on trial, the Massachusetts legislature had never passed a law criminalizing the assistance of suicide with words. The Founding Fathers agreed that laws or rulings that retroactively punish actions or statements after the fact would counter the founding principles of the United States of America. To punish someone after their action is committed with no previous actions of the same nature being punished accordingly creates a dangerous precedent for speech to stay free. The decision by the Massachusetts Superior Court to rule that the text messages sent by Carter at the time of the incident were grounds for any level of intentional homicide is difficult to discern based on the facts. Based on the Due Process rights granted to every individual, the State is prohibited from prosecuting defendants “unless the statute defines the criminal offense [1] with sufficient definiteness that ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and [2] in a manner that does not encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.”[ix] The argument that Carter was not given fair notice of the ability to be criminally charged for involuntary manslaughter for the text messages sent poses another constitutional issue with the conviction. Massachusetts’ legislative history on reckless conduct under involuntary manslaughter has never considered words as reckless conduct fulfilling that element of the crime.
Carter’s decision to tell Roy to get back in the car when having second thoughts has a strong basis for wanton and reckless action. The issue with it being viewed in this manner is a text message is protected speech unless it crosses over into one of the unprotected realms of speech. Otherwise, the text message is merely speech. The text messages overwhelmingly indicate mental issues on both sides and a clear knowledge by Ms. Carter of the severity of Mr. Roy’s mental health. She was aware of his multiple suicide attempts and, from the text messages, knew how likely he was to try to do it again. With all this evidence and law, it is clear that the United States Supreme Court’s denial of a writ of certiorari for this should be reconsidered. There are many constitutional issues that can be addressed, regardless of the sentence being served.
[i] HBO MAX, I Love You, Now Die: The Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter, (S1 E1: The Prosecution, at 11:37).
[ii] Model Jury Instructions on Homicide: VII. Involuntary Manslaughter (Mass. 2019) (“Wanton or reckless conduct is intentional conduct that create[s] a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another person. Wanton or reckless conduct usually involves an affirmative act. An omission or failure to act may constitute wanton or reckless conduct where the defendant has a duty to act.”).
[iii] See HBO MAX, I Love You, Now Die: The Commonwealth v. Michelle Carter, (S1 E1: The Prosecution, at 24:07-24:43).
[iv] Victoria Lujan, Blurred Lines: How the Court in Commonwealth v. Carter Blurred the Line Between Freedom of Speech and Criminal Liability, 61 Hous. L. Rev. 209 (2023).
[v] See U.S. Const. amend. I (“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”).
[vi] See Victoria Lujan, Blurred Lines: How the Court in Commonwealth v. Carter Blurred the Line Between Freedom of Speech and Criminal Liability, 61 Hous. L. Rev. 209 (2023) (“The categories of speech that are excluded from First Amendment Protection include ‘obscenity, defamation, fraud[ulent speech leading to deception], incitement, fighting words, true threats, speech integral to criminal conduct, and child pornography.”).
[vii] See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 572 (1942).
[viii] U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 3 (“An ex post facto law, named using the Latin phrase for after the fact, is a law that imposes criminal liability or increases criminal punishment retroactively”); see also Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper No. 84 (“The creation of crimes after the commission of the fact, or . . . punishment for things which, when they were done, were breaches of no law, and the practice of arbitrary imprisonments, have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny.”).
[ix] Victoria Lujan, Blurred Lines: How the Court in Commonwealth v. Carter Blurred the Line Between Freedom of Speech and Criminal Liability, 61 Hous. L. Rev. 209 (2023).
