Photo courtesy of the NYT

We've been tracking this sad but interesting case for over a year. The case involves a series of texts [literally thousands] a teenager sent to her friend who was contemplating suicide; the decedent was on-the-fence, but the young girl's texts put him over the edge.

Michelle Carter was sentenced to 15-month county jail term yesterday in Massachusetts for involuntary manslaughter of her friend, Conrad Roy. In June, she was convicted following a bench trial.

Ms. Carter was found to be "virtually present" when Roy committed suicide through carbon monoxide poisoning. She encouraged him -some would say badgered him- to complete the act by sending a series of text messages to his cell phone.

Last year, her defense lawyer moved to quash the indictment; this maneuver went all the way to the Massachusetts Superior Court. The High Court made the following ruling:

It is important to articulate what this case is not about. It is not about a person seeking to ameliorate the anguish of someone coping with a terminal illness and questioning the value of life. Nor is it about a person offering support, comfort, and even assistance to a mature adult who, confronted with such circumstances, has decided to end his or her life. These situations are easily distinguishable from the present case, in which the grand jury heard evidence suggesting a systematic campaign of coercion on which the virtually present defendant embarked — captured and preserved through her text messages — that targeted the equivocating young victim’s insecurities and acted to subvert his willpower in favor of her own. On the specific facts of this case, there was sufficient evidence to support a probable cause finding that the defendant’s command to the victim in the final moments of his life to follow through on his suicide attempt was a direct, causal link to his death.

Rather than take the matter before a jury, Ms. Carter's lawyers opted for a bench trial; a trial where the judge makes all the findings of fact.

Of course, her conviction and sentence will be appealed. Carter's lawyers assert that the lack of a state law banning assisted suicide and the First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution form the basis of their appeal.

Prosecutors sought a lengthily prison term. They asserted that Carter wanted the attention that she thought would come from being the grieving girlfriend.

Some legal experts applaud the relatively light sentence, pointing to the teen aged angst and drama constantly swirling about the Internet. This was an electronic communication crime involving two very young and emotionally challenged individuals.

Both victim and perpetrator struggled with mental illness in this case. The judge apparently sentenced Carter to local confinement -rather than to the state penitentiary- in order for her to be close to her family support network.

One the one hand, Carter was very far away from the decedent on the night he took his own life. On the other hand, when he got out of his truck during the act, texting Carter all the while, she called him and talked him back into the truck.

We will let you know if Carter's appeal gets any traction. What a sad case.

Post #602
www.clarkstonlegal.com

Most serious-minded lawyers will tell you they prefer to practice law in federal court. It is a whole different professional arena.

Whenever I get to appear in Detroit for the occasional federal case, or in Cincinnati on appeal, I step-up my game a notch or two; you cannot help but do so. The moment you pass through security, into the sweeping marble halls, the history of the typical federal courthouse envelopes you. In addition to lots of marble, long usually uncrowded hallways, and spacious airy well-appointed courtrooms, you always find helpful but serious clerks.

One of the sacred traditions of federal practice is that no cameras are allowed into the courtroom. That's just the way it has been for the past 70-years.

Now, the unfortunately-named "Sunshine in the Courtroom Act" is again making its way through the U.S. House of Representatives; since 2005, the bill keeps getting reintroduced with various judges across the country expressing keen interest in getting cameras in their courts. If enacted, the bill calls for media coverage in federal courts at the discretion of the presiding judge.

Applying this concept to current affairs, it would mean we would all have the opportunity to follow the Boston Marathon bombing case; or the battle-of-the experts bench trial in the same-sex adoption case that unfolded here in Detroit just over a year ago.  Imagine the public interest in real-time coverage of the Supreme Court's proceedings in Bush v Gore, when the SCOTUS basically selected a President.

The prohibition of cameras is based on Federal Rule 53, which states:

Except as otherwise provided by a statute or these rules, the court must not permit the taking of photographs in the courtroom during judicial proceedings or the broadcasting of judicial proceedings from the courtroom.

This rule applies to all federal courtrooms, including -as amended- the U.S. Supreme Court. Despite occasional pressure from the legislature, and with three quarters of the American public indicating approval of placing cameras into federal courts, we predict that cameras will remain banned from federal courts.

One effect of the occasional pressure to open-up the federal courts has been to release digital recordings of the proceedings. This, of course, is a far-cry from real time streaming of the arguments and proceedings.

Some legal scholars question the public utility of having real-time media coverage of federal appellate argument, especially at the SCOTUS-level. The idea is that appellate courts do not issue on-the-spot decisions but rather, the appellate tribunals issue opinions and orders weeks after the submission of briefs and argument. Some say oral argument is but frosting on an already baked cake; so why the need for cameras?

Obviously, the countervailing argument is our need for the openness of government. As a member of the public, any one of us can go to Washington D.C. and stand in line at the SCOTUS to hopefully obtain one of the few hundred seats in the gallery of the High Court to observe the legal arguments first hand. But seriously, what's the likelihood of that?

For now, a federal court is one of the few areas of our government where the sun does not shine. We'll see whether the Sunshine in the Courtroom Act will get any traction to change all that...

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com

In what legal scholars are hailing as a surprising ruling, [we were surprised here at this blog] the United States Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the state constitutional ban in Michigan on same-sex marriages and adoptions.  In doing so, the Sixth Circuit broke away from the other federal circuits to decide the issue.  These state bans have been held unconstitutional in the 4th, 7th, and 10th Circuits.

The case we are talking about here in Michigan is, of course, the Deboer case.  The ruling from Cincinnati, also encompassed state ban cases pending in Ohio, Tennessee, and Kentucky; this ruling will make the same-sex civil rights issue more attractive to the SCOTUS, no doubt.  On that note, Lyle Denniston of SCOTUSBlog, lays out three distinct procedural options that lawyers for the Deboers and the other litigants in the cases pending in the other Sixth Circuit states are analyzing as this post is being composed.

The Sixth Circuit held that states are able to determine what rules govern the institution of marriage.  One consequence of the ruling is that 100s of couples remain in legal limbo that were legally married in Michigan during the brief period between when federal judge Bernard Friedman struck the state law ban, and when the ruling was stayed on appeal.

Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette stated briefly that he believes and has repeatedly stated that the issue will be ultimately decided by the SCOTUS sooner rather than later; that is as it should be.  Those of us in the legal industry, especially appellate watchers like Mr. Denniston, anticipate swift filings on behalf of the lawyers involved in the cases.

Last month, presumably because there was unanimity among the circuits, SCOTUS took a pass on the issue. Because of this ruling, new filings could hit the High Court by the end of the month.

We predicted wrong in one of our earlier posts; we predicted the Sixth Circuit would uphold the lower courts as the appellate courts have done in Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Utah and Oklahoma throughout the federal circuits; and with more cases in the pipeline.

We here at the Law Blogger agree with Attorney General Schuette that resolution of these civil rights issues needs SCOTUS attention, and the sooner the better.

www.clarkstonlegal.com
info@clarkstonlegal.com