In July of 2014, 18-year-old Conrad Roy ended his life. His former girlfriend, Michelle Carter, is being charged with involuntary manslaughter for supposedly convincing him to do so.
In texts, that were acquired by the authorities, from Roy’s phone, there is evidence that shows Carter telling Roy to do it. She told him how to do it, and assured him that his family would be fine afterwards. When he was having doubts she texted him and said, “I thought you wanted to do this. The time is right and you’re ready. You just need to do it.”
Carter is being charged with involuntary manslaughter. The indictment is supported by evidence that she caused Roy’s death by “wantonly and recklessly assisting him in poisoning himself with carbon monoxide.” Involuntary manslaughter refers to the unintentional death of an individual as a result of recklessness or a misdemeanor. According to Persampieri v. Commonwealth, for someone to be found guilty under a theory of wanton or reckless conduct, three things must be satisfied:
1. The defendant’s conduct was intentional
2. The conduct was wanton or reckless
3. The conduct caused the victim’s death
In a phone call where Roy expressed his fear that the carbon monoxide was working, Carter told him to get back in the truck that he had exited. Carter exhibited wanton or reckless conduct when she told him to do that, as well as when she told him how to produce carbon monoxide through the combustion engine and counseled him to commit suicide. Her actions after his death, where she seemed to be seeking attention, only further demonstrated her intentions. There is probable cause to believe that she caused Roy’s suicide by telling him to get back into the truck after he’d gotten out.
Carter’s defense argued that there is insufficient evidence that she’s an offender because there is no evidence that she inflicted bodily harm. Carter also argued that her text messages are protected under the First Amendment and Article 16’s freedom of speech safeguards.
There are some safeguards that lose their constitutional rights when used in a way that threatens the well being of others. For example, one cannot simply say, “I’m going to kill you,” or yell, “fire” in a movie theatre because it compromises the wellbeing of other people. In those instances, the person who said either of those things loses his or her constitutional rights to their free speech. “The First Amendment does not protect conduct that threatens another,” Commonwealth v. Sholley.
Carter’s arguments are all disproven by common laws and sufficient evidence from the plaintiff. She knew that her actions were reckless and illegal when she told her friend Samantha that she would go to jail if the authorities saw any of the messages between her and Roy. (The full conversation and court documents can be viewed here).
I personally believe that Carter is guilty. Freedom of speech is a right, and it’s powerful. Carter was reckless with her right to free speech and in the end that constitutional protection was taken away. This investigation is still going on. I patiently await the verdict, and hope that we have justice for Conrad.
If you or anyone you know may be suicidal or in immediate danger of fatally harming themselves, do not hesitate to get help. There are resources available if there is not immediate danger such as the suicide prevention helpline, 1-800-273-TALK (8255). If someone is in immediate danger call 911 right away. There are other options than suicide. Remember that you are so loved and so important. The world would not be the way it is without you. There is no shame in asking for help if you need it.
