1
00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:03,520
Speaker 1: It's a groundbreaking and disturbing case. A twenty year old

2
00:00:03,600 --> 00:00:06,840
Speaker 1: is on trial in Massachusetts for manslaughter for texting her

3
00:00:06,880 --> 00:00:10,280
Speaker 1: boyfriend pushing him to commit suicide when he was wavering

4
00:00:10,360 --> 00:00:14,280
Speaker 1: and considering going to sleep instead. Prosecutors saying more than

5
00:00:14,320 --> 00:00:18,000
Speaker 1: a thousand texts Michelle Carter not only pressured Conrad Roy

6
00:00:18,040 --> 00:00:21,320
Speaker 1: to kill himself, but also instructed him on exactly how

7
00:00:21,360 --> 00:00:24,759
Speaker 1: to poison himself with carbon monoxide, which he did in

8
00:00:24,800 --> 00:00:28,440
Speaker 1: his pickup truck. In the summer of fourteen, the state's

9
00:00:28,480 --> 00:00:31,520
Speaker 1: highest court rule that prosecutors could go forward with a

10
00:00:31,560 --> 00:00:36,320
Speaker 1: trial on involuntary manslaughter charges. Carter's defense lawyers say that

11
00:00:36,440 --> 00:00:40,400
Speaker 1: Roy had long battled depression and had attempted suicide, and

12
00:00:40,440 --> 00:00:44,360
Speaker 1: that Carter herself had a history of emotional instability. Our

13
00:00:44,400 --> 00:00:49,519
Speaker 1: guest is Rosanna Cavalaro, professor at Suffolk University Law School. Rosanna,

14
00:00:49,600 --> 00:00:52,120
Speaker 1: when I first heard about the case, I thought it

15
00:00:52,159 --> 00:00:55,000
Speaker 1: was odd and a stretch, But then I read these

16
00:00:55,200 --> 00:00:59,800
Speaker 1: very dark texts where she's aggressive, pushing him to commit

17
00:01:00,160 --> 00:01:05,319
Speaker 1: suicide and bullying him when he wavers um. What does

18
00:01:05,360 --> 00:01:08,640
Speaker 1: the state have to prove? The state have to prove

19
00:01:08,959 --> 00:01:14,720
Speaker 1: that she understood that her conduct could pose a risk

20
00:01:14,880 --> 00:01:17,880
Speaker 1: of significant harm to him, and I think that part

21
00:01:18,400 --> 00:01:23,320
Speaker 1: is relatively straightforward the context, as you said, the thing

22
00:01:23,440 --> 00:01:26,160
Speaker 1: she was urging him to do was to end his life.

23
00:01:26,200 --> 00:01:29,119
Speaker 1: Cannot be a greater risk than that. The other thing

24
00:01:29,160 --> 00:01:32,479
Speaker 1: that they have to prove is that her words caused that,

25
00:01:32,680 --> 00:01:35,640
Speaker 1: And I think that's really where the complexity is, because

26
00:01:36,280 --> 00:01:39,800
Speaker 1: we like to understand that each individual controls their own

27
00:01:40,040 --> 00:01:43,480
Speaker 1: decisions are free will is what makes us different from

28
00:01:43,480 --> 00:01:46,920
Speaker 1: every other animal. Uh. And it's unusual to be able

29
00:01:46,959 --> 00:01:50,960
Speaker 1: to say that one person causes another to do something

30
00:01:51,120 --> 00:01:55,040
Speaker 1: as drastic as taking their life. But I think that

31
00:01:55,080 --> 00:01:58,760
Speaker 1: the Commonwealth has made inroads on that. That is, they've

32
00:01:58,800 --> 00:02:02,520
Speaker 1: demonstrated that the aid that she spoken at the circumstances

33
00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:04,560
Speaker 1: of him being in and out of the car as

34
00:02:04,600 --> 00:02:09,079
Speaker 1: you described, UH, suggests that a judge could find that

35
00:02:09,240 --> 00:02:12,679
Speaker 1: her words made the difference, that her words really did

36
00:02:13,200 --> 00:02:17,960
Speaker 1: override his own decision making. You mentioned a judge. How

37
00:02:18,000 --> 00:02:21,959
Speaker 1: important is the decision the defense made to waive a

38
00:02:22,080 --> 00:02:25,720
Speaker 1: jury trial and have a judge decide the case. Well,

39
00:02:25,760 --> 00:02:28,520
Speaker 1: I think that the defense expects that if they try

40
00:02:28,560 --> 00:02:30,480
Speaker 1: it to a judge, there's going to be a little

41
00:02:30,520 --> 00:02:33,880
Speaker 1: bit less of the kind of raw sympathy that we

42
00:02:33,919 --> 00:02:38,120
Speaker 1: would get with a cross section of jurors. That sympathy is,

43
00:02:38,360 --> 00:02:40,760
Speaker 1: you know, nothing wrong with it. It's not inappropriate, but

44
00:02:40,840 --> 00:02:44,680
Speaker 1: it's sometimes invites jurors to get to a result that

45
00:02:44,760 --> 00:02:47,919
Speaker 1: they want without absolutely towing the line on the law.

46
00:02:48,400 --> 00:02:51,320
Speaker 1: And I think trying to adjudge is a way of saying,

47
00:02:51,440 --> 00:02:54,880
Speaker 1: we really want a very careful consideration of whether this

48
00:02:55,120 --> 00:02:59,640
Speaker 1: could ever be a manslaughter. You know, let's assume that

49
00:02:59,680 --> 00:03:02,240
Speaker 1: the state it proves everything. There's still a real question

50
00:03:02,280 --> 00:03:06,160
Speaker 1: about whether one person can cause another to make a

51
00:03:06,240 --> 00:03:10,640
Speaker 1: decision that's life ending. The defense argued to the state's

52
00:03:10,760 --> 00:03:15,800
Speaker 1: highest court that this was protected speech and lost. Tell

53
00:03:15,840 --> 00:03:19,040
Speaker 1: me what the highest court ruled. Well, I think the

54
00:03:19,120 --> 00:03:21,640
Speaker 1: idea is that you know, there are limits even in

55
00:03:21,680 --> 00:03:24,280
Speaker 1: the world of speech. You know, you can't yell fire

56
00:03:24,360 --> 00:03:27,440
Speaker 1: in a crowded theater, is the famous quote. And I

57
00:03:27,800 --> 00:03:30,480
Speaker 1: can say fire in a lot of different contexts, but

58
00:03:30,520 --> 00:03:32,680
Speaker 1: if I say it in a way that poses an

59
00:03:32,760 --> 00:03:38,240
Speaker 1: imminent threat and imminent risk, then I've lost that freedom

60
00:03:38,280 --> 00:03:41,760
Speaker 1: to speak. It's not an absolutely unlimited right, because you know,

61
00:03:41,880 --> 00:03:46,560
Speaker 1: words have effects on others, and in certain contexts, even words,

62
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:50,200
Speaker 1: and the right to use them can be limited. What's

63
00:03:50,240 --> 00:03:54,080
Speaker 1: the defense case, Well, I think the defense, you know,

64
00:03:54,240 --> 00:03:56,640
Speaker 1: is proceeding on several fronts, one of which is to

65
00:03:56,720 --> 00:04:01,120
Speaker 1: suggest that she herself was impaired, and I think some

66
00:04:01,200 --> 00:04:05,240
Speaker 1: of the most recent evidence was about what her circumstances are,

67
00:04:05,320 --> 00:04:08,440
Speaker 1: whether the medicines that she was relying on were clouding

68
00:04:08,720 --> 00:04:11,000
Speaker 1: her judgments. You know, one of those things that we

69
00:04:11,080 --> 00:04:13,960
Speaker 1: require in any criminal cases that the person we want

70
00:04:14,000 --> 00:04:18,880
Speaker 1: to punish is a person who was exercising their own will,

71
00:04:19,200 --> 00:04:22,720
Speaker 1: their own uh men's ray. That is, they were thinking

72
00:04:22,760 --> 00:04:26,320
Speaker 1: about and understood the nature of their own behavior and

73
00:04:26,400 --> 00:04:29,240
Speaker 1: went ahead with it anyway. So if we have a

74
00:04:29,279 --> 00:04:31,880
Speaker 1: person who's you know, this is not her, but in general,

75
00:04:31,960 --> 00:04:34,520
Speaker 1: a person who's too drunk to make a decision or

76
00:04:34,680 --> 00:04:38,000
Speaker 1: is um mentally ill so that they are not in

77
00:04:38,000 --> 00:04:40,960
Speaker 1: a rational mind frame, then we're not going to punish them,

78
00:04:41,040 --> 00:04:43,400
Speaker 1: or we're not going to punish them precisely the same way.

79
00:04:43,640 --> 00:04:45,520
Speaker 1: So that's one area that I think that they were

80
00:04:45,560 --> 00:04:48,800
Speaker 1: exploring with the evidence about her own medications and her

81
00:04:48,839 --> 00:04:52,400
Speaker 1: own treatment history. And then I think they're also going

82
00:04:52,440 --> 00:04:54,599
Speaker 1: to argue, as they did at the close of the

83
00:04:54,600 --> 00:04:57,919
Speaker 1: Commonwealth evidence that even if you take everything the way

84
00:04:58,200 --> 00:05:00,880
Speaker 1: the Commonwealth wants you to take it, we really should

85
00:05:00,880 --> 00:05:05,560
Speaker 1: hesitate before saying that one person can, through a phone,

86
00:05:05,760 --> 00:05:10,000
Speaker 1: through a text, take another person's life, which is, you know,

87
00:05:10,040 --> 00:05:12,400
Speaker 1: a very rough way of saying what manslaughter is. It's

88
00:05:12,440 --> 00:05:15,120
Speaker 1: an inexact way of saying it. What what the Commonwealth

89
00:05:15,200 --> 00:05:18,240
Speaker 1: really saying is she created a risk to him that

90
00:05:18,320 --> 00:05:22,479
Speaker 1: was so significant and so unreasonable that it deserves punishment.

91
00:05:23,320 --> 00:05:27,720
Speaker 1: Will that forty minute phone call where Roy got out

92
00:05:27,720 --> 00:05:31,839
Speaker 1: of the truck apparently feeling afraid, but in a phone

93
00:05:31,839 --> 00:05:35,240
Speaker 1: call afterwards, Carter told her French she ordered him to

94
00:05:35,279 --> 00:05:38,080
Speaker 1: get back in the truck, then listened for twenty minutes

95
00:05:38,200 --> 00:05:41,200
Speaker 1: as he cried in pain and took his last breath

96
00:05:41,360 --> 00:05:45,120
Speaker 1: and then died. Will that be important for the judge

97
00:05:45,200 --> 00:05:50,080
Speaker 1: in determining causation. Absolutely absolutely, That's the center of it

98
00:05:50,440 --> 00:05:52,919
Speaker 1: and what we're really looking at. And the Supreme Judicial

99
00:05:52,920 --> 00:05:56,040
Speaker 1: Court mentioned this again in the abstract, not in connection

100
00:05:56,040 --> 00:05:59,279
Speaker 1: with this exact evidence, although they had some access to it.

101
00:05:59,320 --> 00:06:03,160
Speaker 1: Was the idea that one person can kind of override

102
00:06:03,320 --> 00:06:07,280
Speaker 1: another person's will, that he could be so vulnerable and

103
00:06:07,440 --> 00:06:10,520
Speaker 1: so diminished in terms of his ability to make his

104
00:06:10,560 --> 00:06:15,040
Speaker 1: own judgments, that she could push him verbally, push him

105
00:06:15,080 --> 00:06:18,599
Speaker 1: to do something that was the thing that ended his life.

106
00:06:18,920 --> 00:06:22,320
Speaker 1: So the Supreme Judicial Court has recognized that possibility. And

107
00:06:22,360 --> 00:06:24,960
Speaker 1: I think the evidence is very powerful that you know,

108
00:06:25,000 --> 00:06:29,200
Speaker 1: if ever there were a case where those pieces came together, this,

109
00:06:29,400 --> 00:06:32,640
Speaker 1: this could be it. You know, it's it's the technological

110
00:06:32,800 --> 00:06:37,320
Speaker 1: or modern day equivalent of somebody down below watching a

111
00:06:37,400 --> 00:06:40,600
Speaker 1: desperate person up on a roof and yelling, jump, you know,

112
00:06:40,760 --> 00:06:44,159
Speaker 1: jump do it? Uh? And they did it electronically. She

113
00:06:44,200 --> 00:06:46,560
Speaker 1: did it through a text. But what it amounts to

114
00:06:46,680 --> 00:06:50,400
Speaker 1: is pushing him beyond a tipping point where he wasn't

115
00:06:50,440 --> 00:06:54,280
Speaker 1: able to if the court sees it this way, he

116
00:06:54,360 --> 00:06:58,680
Speaker 1: wasn't able to decide for himself in that moment, Rosanna.

117
00:06:59,080 --> 00:07:01,560
Speaker 1: Had there been in about a minute, have there been

118
00:07:01,600 --> 00:07:05,200
Speaker 1: other cases similar to this, though not exactly the same,

119
00:07:05,920 --> 00:07:08,279
Speaker 1: You know they have? In fact, the STC cited a

120
00:07:08,320 --> 00:07:11,280
Speaker 1: couple of them, and I just was looking at them quickly. Uh.

121
00:07:11,320 --> 00:07:14,280
Speaker 1: One of them was a terrible case, again and involving

122
00:07:14,280 --> 00:07:18,120
Speaker 1: a domestic situation, her husband and wife at odds, and

123
00:07:18,200 --> 00:07:21,040
Speaker 1: she threatened to kill herself and he actually made the

124
00:07:21,040 --> 00:07:23,480
Speaker 1: gun available to her. She was struggling with the gun.

125
00:07:23,560 --> 00:07:26,320
Speaker 1: He showed her that if she handled it a certain way,

126
00:07:26,720 --> 00:07:30,200
Speaker 1: she could succeed in pulling the trigger on herself. And

127
00:07:30,800 --> 00:07:33,880
Speaker 1: after he showed her, she did it, and she ended

128
00:07:33,880 --> 00:07:36,240
Speaker 1: her life with the gun. And the court found that

129
00:07:36,360 --> 00:07:39,520
Speaker 1: his cajoling her like that he's making the gun available,

130
00:07:39,520 --> 00:07:41,400
Speaker 1: putting it there on the floor for her to reach,

131
00:07:41,440 --> 00:07:44,120
Speaker 1: and then showing her how she could move her arms

132
00:07:44,120 --> 00:07:45,800
Speaker 1: the length in such a way that she could fire

133
00:07:45,800 --> 00:07:50,640
Speaker 1: it on herself, was enough to make him the cause.

134
00:07:50,920 --> 00:07:54,160
Speaker 1: Even though undoubtedly he was not touching the gun when

135
00:07:54,160 --> 00:07:56,360
Speaker 1: it went off, he could still be viewed as the

136
00:07:56,480 --> 00:08:00,080
Speaker 1: cause of her suicide. So I think we have the

137
00:08:00,160 --> 00:08:03,120
Speaker 1: precedent there that cases about maybe twenty five or thirty

138
00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:05,720
Speaker 1: years old, but nothing in the interim has said that

139
00:08:05,760 --> 00:08:08,880
Speaker 1: it's not good law. Thank you so much. It's it's

140
00:08:08,880 --> 00:08:13,400
Speaker 1: a tragic case, but certainly incredibly interesting as a legal matter.

141
00:08:13,760 --> 00:08:17,960
Speaker 1: That's Rosanna Cavallero, Professor at Suffolk University Law School,