WEBVTT - Defense Rests in Texting Suicide Case (Audio)

0:00:00.080 --> 0:00:03.520
<v Speaker 1>It's a groundbreaking and disturbing case. A twenty year old

0:00:03.600 --> 0:00:06.840
<v Speaker 1>is on trial in Massachusetts for manslaughter for texting her

0:00:06.880 --> 0:00:10.280
<v Speaker 1>boyfriend pushing him to commit suicide when he was wavering

0:00:10.360 --> 0:00:14.280
<v Speaker 1>and considering going to sleep instead. Prosecutors saying more than

0:00:14.320 --> 0:00:18.000
<v Speaker 1>a thousand texts Michelle Carter not only pressured Conrad Roy

0:00:18.040 --> 0:00:21.320
<v Speaker 1>to kill himself, but also instructed him on exactly how

0:00:21.360 --> 0:00:24.759
<v Speaker 1>to poison himself with carbon monoxide, which he did in

0:00:24.800 --> 0:00:28.440
<v Speaker 1>his pickup truck. In the summer of fourteen, the state's

0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:31.520
<v Speaker 1>highest court rule that prosecutors could go forward with a

0:00:31.560 --> 0:00:36.320
<v Speaker 1>trial on involuntary manslaughter charges. Carter's defense lawyers say that

0:00:36.440 --> 0:00:40.400
<v Speaker 1>Roy had long battled depression and had attempted suicide, and

0:00:40.440 --> 0:00:44.360
<v Speaker 1>that Carter herself had a history of emotional instability. Our

0:00:44.400 --> 0:00:49.519
<v Speaker 1>guest is Rosanna Cavalaro, professor at Suffolk University Law School. Rosanna,

0:00:49.600 --> 0:00:52.120
<v Speaker 1>when I first heard about the case, I thought it

0:00:52.159 --> 0:00:55.000
<v Speaker 1>was odd and a stretch, But then I read these

0:00:55.200 --> 0:00:59.800
<v Speaker 1>very dark texts where she's aggressive, pushing him to commit

0:01:00.160 --> 0:01:05.319
<v Speaker 1>suicide and bullying him when he wavers um. What does

0:01:05.360 --> 0:01:08.640
<v Speaker 1>the state have to prove? The state have to prove

0:01:08.959 --> 0:01:14.720
<v Speaker 1>that she understood that her conduct could pose a risk

0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:17.880
<v Speaker 1>of significant harm to him, and I think that part

0:01:18.400 --> 0:01:23.320
<v Speaker 1>is relatively straightforward the context, as you said, the thing

0:01:23.440 --> 0:01:26.160
<v Speaker 1>she was urging him to do was to end his life.

0:01:26.200 --> 0:01:29.119
<v Speaker 1>Cannot be a greater risk than that. The other thing

0:01:29.160 --> 0:01:32.479
<v Speaker 1>that they have to prove is that her words caused that,

0:01:32.680 --> 0:01:35.640
<v Speaker 1>And I think that's really where the complexity is, because

0:01:36.280 --> 0:01:39.800
<v Speaker 1>we like to understand that each individual controls their own

0:01:40.040 --> 0:01:43.480
<v Speaker 1>decisions are free will is what makes us different from

0:01:43.480 --> 0:01:46.920
<v Speaker 1>every other animal. Uh. And it's unusual to be able

0:01:46.959 --> 0:01:50.960
<v Speaker 1>to say that one person causes another to do something

0:01:51.120 --> 0:01:55.040
<v Speaker 1>as drastic as taking their life. But I think that

0:01:55.080 --> 0:01:58.760
<v Speaker 1>the Commonwealth has made inroads on that. That is, they've

0:01:58.800 --> 0:02:02.520
<v Speaker 1>demonstrated that the aid that she spoken at the circumstances

0:02:02.560 --> 0:02:04.560
<v Speaker 1>of him being in and out of the car as

0:02:04.600 --> 0:02:09.079
<v Speaker 1>you described, UH, suggests that a judge could find that

0:02:09.240 --> 0:02:12.679
<v Speaker 1>her words made the difference, that her words really did

0:02:13.200 --> 0:02:17.960
<v Speaker 1>override his own decision making. You mentioned a judge. How

0:02:18.000 --> 0:02:21.959
<v Speaker 1>important is the decision the defense made to waive a

0:02:22.080 --> 0:02:25.720
<v Speaker 1>jury trial and have a judge decide the case. Well,

0:02:25.760 --> 0:02:28.520
<v Speaker 1>I think that the defense expects that if they try

0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:30.480
<v Speaker 1>it to a judge, there's going to be a little

0:02:30.520 --> 0:02:33.880
<v Speaker 1>bit less of the kind of raw sympathy that we

0:02:33.919 --> 0:02:38.120
<v Speaker 1>would get with a cross section of jurors. That sympathy is,

0:02:38.360 --> 0:02:40.760
<v Speaker 1>you know, nothing wrong with it. It's not inappropriate, but

0:02:40.840 --> 0:02:44.680
<v Speaker 1>it's sometimes invites jurors to get to a result that

0:02:44.760 --> 0:02:47.919
<v Speaker 1>they want without absolutely towing the line on the law.

0:02:48.400 --> 0:02:51.320
<v Speaker 1>And I think trying to adjudge is a way of saying,

0:02:51.440 --> 0:02:54.880
<v Speaker 1>we really want a very careful consideration of whether this

0:02:55.120 --> 0:02:59.640
<v Speaker 1>could ever be a manslaughter. You know, let's assume that

0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:02.240
<v Speaker 1>the state it proves everything. There's still a real question

0:03:02.280 --> 0:03:06.160
<v Speaker 1>about whether one person can cause another to make a

0:03:06.240 --> 0:03:10.640
<v Speaker 1>decision that's life ending. The defense argued to the state's

0:03:10.760 --> 0:03:15.800
<v Speaker 1>highest court that this was protected speech and lost. Tell

0:03:15.840 --> 0:03:19.040
<v Speaker 1>me what the highest court ruled. Well, I think the

0:03:19.120 --> 0:03:21.640
<v Speaker 1>idea is that you know, there are limits even in

0:03:21.680 --> 0:03:24.280
<v Speaker 1>the world of speech. You know, you can't yell fire

0:03:24.360 --> 0:03:27.440
<v Speaker 1>in a crowded theater, is the famous quote. And I

0:03:27.800 --> 0:03:30.480
<v Speaker 1>can say fire in a lot of different contexts, but

0:03:30.520 --> 0:03:32.680
<v Speaker 1>if I say it in a way that poses an

0:03:32.760 --> 0:03:38.240
<v Speaker 1>imminent threat and imminent risk, then I've lost that freedom

0:03:38.280 --> 0:03:41.760
<v Speaker 1>to speak. It's not an absolutely unlimited right, because you know,

0:03:41.880 --> 0:03:46.560
<v Speaker 1>words have effects on others, and in certain contexts, even words,

0:03:46.920 --> 0:03:50.200
<v Speaker 1>and the right to use them can be limited. What's

0:03:50.240 --> 0:03:54.080
<v Speaker 1>the defense case, Well, I think the defense, you know,

0:03:54.240 --> 0:03:56.640
<v Speaker 1>is proceeding on several fronts, one of which is to

0:03:56.720 --> 0:04:01.120
<v Speaker 1>suggest that she herself was impaired, and I think some

0:04:01.200 --> 0:04:05.240
<v Speaker 1>of the most recent evidence was about what her circumstances are,

0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:08.440
<v Speaker 1>whether the medicines that she was relying on were clouding

0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:11.000
<v Speaker 1>her judgments. You know, one of those things that we

0:04:11.080 --> 0:04:13.960
<v Speaker 1>require in any criminal cases that the person we want

0:04:14.000 --> 0:04:18.880
<v Speaker 1>to punish is a person who was exercising their own will,

0:04:19.200 --> 0:04:22.720
<v Speaker 1>their own uh men's ray. That is, they were thinking

0:04:22.760 --> 0:04:26.320
<v Speaker 1>about and understood the nature of their own behavior and

0:04:26.400 --> 0:04:29.240
<v Speaker 1>went ahead with it anyway. So if we have a

0:04:29.279 --> 0:04:31.880
<v Speaker 1>person who's you know, this is not her, but in general,

0:04:31.960 --> 0:04:34.520
<v Speaker 1>a person who's too drunk to make a decision or

0:04:34.680 --> 0:04:38.000
<v Speaker 1>is um mentally ill so that they are not in

0:04:38.000 --> 0:04:40.960
<v Speaker 1>a rational mind frame, then we're not going to punish them,

0:04:41.040 --> 0:04:43.400
<v Speaker 1>or we're not going to punish them precisely the same way.

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:45.520
<v Speaker 1>So that's one area that I think that they were

0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:48.800
<v Speaker 1>exploring with the evidence about her own medications and her

0:04:48.839 --> 0:04:52.400
<v Speaker 1>own treatment history. And then I think they're also going

0:04:52.440 --> 0:04:54.599
<v Speaker 1>to argue, as they did at the close of the

0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:57.919
<v Speaker 1>Commonwealth evidence that even if you take everything the way

0:04:58.200 --> 0:05:00.880
<v Speaker 1>the Commonwealth wants you to take it, we really should

0:05:00.880 --> 0:05:05.560
<v Speaker 1>hesitate before saying that one person can, through a phone,

0:05:05.760 --> 0:05:10.000
<v Speaker 1>through a text, take another person's life, which is, you know,

0:05:10.040 --> 0:05:12.400
<v Speaker 1>a very rough way of saying what manslaughter is. It's

0:05:12.440 --> 0:05:15.120
<v Speaker 1>an inexact way of saying it. What what the Commonwealth

0:05:15.200 --> 0:05:18.240
<v Speaker 1>really saying is she created a risk to him that

0:05:18.320 --> 0:05:22.479
<v Speaker 1>was so significant and so unreasonable that it deserves punishment.

0:05:23.320 --> 0:05:27.720
<v Speaker 1>Will that forty minute phone call where Roy got out

0:05:27.720 --> 0:05:31.839
<v Speaker 1>of the truck apparently feeling afraid, but in a phone

0:05:31.839 --> 0:05:35.240
<v Speaker 1>call afterwards, Carter told her French she ordered him to

0:05:35.279 --> 0:05:38.080
<v Speaker 1>get back in the truck, then listened for twenty minutes

0:05:38.200 --> 0:05:41.200
<v Speaker 1>as he cried in pain and took his last breath

0:05:41.360 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 1>and then died. Will that be important for the judge

0:05:45.200 --> 0:05:50.080
<v Speaker 1>in determining causation. Absolutely absolutely, That's the center of it

0:05:50.440 --> 0:05:52.919
<v Speaker 1>and what we're really looking at. And the Supreme Judicial

0:05:52.920 --> 0:05:56.040
<v Speaker 1>Court mentioned this again in the abstract, not in connection

0:05:56.040 --> 0:05:59.279
<v Speaker 1>with this exact evidence, although they had some access to it.

0:05:59.320 --> 0:06:03.160
<v Speaker 1>Was the idea that one person can kind of override

0:06:03.320 --> 0:06:07.280
<v Speaker 1>another person's will, that he could be so vulnerable and

0:06:07.440 --> 0:06:10.520
<v Speaker 1>so diminished in terms of his ability to make his

0:06:10.560 --> 0:06:15.040
<v Speaker 1>own judgments, that she could push him verbally, push him

0:06:15.080 --> 0:06:18.599
<v Speaker 1>to do something that was the thing that ended his life.

0:06:18.920 --> 0:06:22.320
<v Speaker 1>So the Supreme Judicial Court has recognized that possibility. And

0:06:22.360 --> 0:06:24.960
<v Speaker 1>I think the evidence is very powerful that you know,

0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:29.200
<v Speaker 1>if ever there were a case where those pieces came together, this,

0:06:29.400 --> 0:06:32.640
<v Speaker 1>this could be it. You know, it's it's the technological

0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:37.320
<v Speaker 1>or modern day equivalent of somebody down below watching a

0:06:37.400 --> 0:06:40.600
<v Speaker 1>desperate person up on a roof and yelling, jump, you know,

0:06:40.760 --> 0:06:44.159
<v Speaker 1>jump do it? Uh? And they did it electronically. She

0:06:44.200 --> 0:06:46.560
<v Speaker 1>did it through a text. But what it amounts to

0:06:46.680 --> 0:06:50.400
<v Speaker 1>is pushing him beyond a tipping point where he wasn't

0:06:50.440 --> 0:06:54.280
<v Speaker 1>able to if the court sees it this way, he

0:06:54.360 --> 0:06:58.680
<v Speaker 1>wasn't able to decide for himself in that moment, Rosanna.

0:06:59.080 --> 0:07:01.560
<v Speaker 1>Had there been in about a minute, have there been

0:07:01.600 --> 0:07:05.200
<v Speaker 1>other cases similar to this, though not exactly the same,

0:07:05.920 --> 0:07:08.279
<v Speaker 1>You know they have? In fact, the STC cited a

0:07:08.320 --> 0:07:11.280
<v Speaker 1>couple of them, and I just was looking at them quickly. Uh.

0:07:11.320 --> 0:07:14.280
<v Speaker 1>One of them was a terrible case, again and involving

0:07:14.280 --> 0:07:18.120
<v Speaker 1>a domestic situation, her husband and wife at odds, and

0:07:18.200 --> 0:07:21.040
<v Speaker 1>she threatened to kill herself and he actually made the

0:07:21.040 --> 0:07:23.480
<v Speaker 1>gun available to her. She was struggling with the gun.

0:07:23.560 --> 0:07:26.320
<v Speaker 1>He showed her that if she handled it a certain way,

0:07:26.720 --> 0:07:30.200
<v Speaker 1>she could succeed in pulling the trigger on herself. And

0:07:30.800 --> 0:07:33.880
<v Speaker 1>after he showed her, she did it, and she ended

0:07:33.880 --> 0:07:36.240
<v Speaker 1>her life with the gun. And the court found that

0:07:36.360 --> 0:07:39.520
<v Speaker 1>his cajoling her like that he's making the gun available,

0:07:39.520 --> 0:07:41.400
<v Speaker 1>putting it there on the floor for her to reach,

0:07:41.440 --> 0:07:44.120
<v Speaker 1>and then showing her how she could move her arms

0:07:44.120 --> 0:07:45.800
<v Speaker 1>the length in such a way that she could fire

0:07:45.800 --> 0:07:50.640
<v Speaker 1>it on herself, was enough to make him the cause.

0:07:50.920 --> 0:07:54.160
<v Speaker 1>Even though undoubtedly he was not touching the gun when

0:07:54.160 --> 0:07:56.360
<v Speaker 1>it went off, he could still be viewed as the

0:07:56.480 --> 0:08:00.080
<v Speaker 1>cause of her suicide. So I think we have the

0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:03.120
<v Speaker 1>precedent there that cases about maybe twenty five or thirty

0:08:03.160 --> 0:08:05.720
<v Speaker 1>years old, but nothing in the interim has said that

0:08:05.760 --> 0:08:08.880
<v Speaker 1>it's not good law. Thank you so much. It's it's

0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:13.400
<v Speaker 1>a tragic case, but certainly incredibly interesting as a legal matter.

0:08:13.760 --> 0:08:17.960
<v Speaker 1>That's Rosanna Cavallero, Professor at Suffolk University Law School,