Will Minnesota Supreme Court accept free speech argument in assisting suicide case?

The First Amendment gives people living in Minnesota the right of free speech but does not clarify what this right entails. It simply states “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech” and this broad statement has been the subject of many court cases over the years, including one recently heard by the Minnesota Supreme Court.

Challenging the law

In 2011, a man was found guilty of encouraging at least two people to commit suicide. Prosecutors said that the man, who worked previously as a nurse, looked for people in online chat rooms who were suicidal. He then made suicide pacts with 10 of these people and told them how to kill themselves, using a step-by-step guide. Authorities also showed through evidence that the man pretended to be concerned about these people and in his online presence, posed as a female nurse who was contemplating suicide.

In his appeal, the man argued that he was within his constitutional rights under the First Amendment and challenged Minnesota law, stating that it violated those rights. The law states that it is illegal for people to help others commit suicide, encourage others to commit suicide, or provide advice deliberately on suicide. An appeals court disagreed and upheld the man’s conviction.

The ruling

After hearing arguments from both sides, the Minnesota Supreme Court decided that the state law did violate the First Amendment, when it came to encouraging someone to commit suicide, and reversed the man’s conviction. The court pointed out that the language in the law did not specify what type of advice or what kind of encouragement and this lack of clarification interfered with a person’s right to express what they think or believe.

However, the court did not dismiss the man’s case either. In its ruling, the court pointed out that speech could be considered under the ‘assisting’ portion of the law, which was not covered by the First Amendment. The court sent the case back to the original judge so that the judge can make a decision on whether the man is guilty of assisting suicide in the case of these two people through his words; the judge did not make a ruling on that aspect of the case previously.

Supreme Court next stop?

After the ruling was announced, the Star Tribune reported the possibility that the case could be brought to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ruling may also have an impact on the ruling in another state where a group is on trial for the suicide of a woman. That group is also accused of encouraging a person to commit suicide.

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.