Last week, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court reversed a decision on a case involving a UMass student who provided a fatal dose of heroin to his friend in 2013. That student was originally charged with involuntary manslaughter. WGBH Morning Edition Host Joe Mathieu spoke with Northeastern University law professor and WGBH News legal analyst Daniel Medwed about the SJC’s reversal. The transcript below has been edited for clarity.
Joe Mathieu: So why did the court reverse its decision in this case?
Daniel Medwed: Well, here’s the background story. Two grad students at UMass, Jesse Carillo and Eric Sinacori, pooled their resources to go buy some heroin in New York City. Notably, they’d used heroin together before, and they’d acquired drugs from this same dealer before. Carrillo was the one who actually made the purchase. Then he gave a portion of the drugs to Sinacori, who used them on his own and had a fatal overdose. Prosecutors then charged Carrillo with involuntary manslaughter, which under Massachusetts law is defined as wantonly or recklessly causing the death of another person. On appeal, his conviction was overturned based on the idea that Carrillo didn’t have any special awareness of a substantial risk of death with this particular batch of drugs, and therefore he didn’t act wantonly or recklessly, at least with respect to Sinacori’s death.
Mathieu: Is it possible supplying drugs to a friend that results in a fatal overdose [could] be seen as manslaughter? Did the court leave open that possibility?
Medwed: The court definitely did. The SJC intimated in the opinion that things might have played out differently had Carrillo been aware that these drugs were especially potent, been aware that Sinacori was especially vulnerable to heroin or even if Carrillo had been present when Sinacori took the drugs and didn’t do anything to prevent the overdose. In fact, Chief Justice Gants’ decision explicitly said if somebody knows that heroin is laced with fentanyl, gives it to a friend and that person dies, then the person who gave the drugs could potentially be on the hook for manslaughter. For what it’s worth, I think this decision was very well decided from the perspective of criminal justice policy. Punishing someone like Carrillo, who himself was an addict, when he didn’t know about the particular level of dangerousness of these drugs would be ineffective and, I think, patently unfair. So [it’s] a brave decision by the SJC.
Mathieu: Let’s turn to what’s happening on the SJC’s oral argument calendar this month. What’s jumping out to you?
Medwed: Well, the case that’s jumping out at me is a First Amendment case also involving UMass, but UMass Boston. Here’s what happened. The student newspaper at UMass Boston published a story that it got from the campus police blotter about a man who had allegedly and surreptitiously taken photos of women on campus. The story was accompanied by a picture of this suspect. The suspect was never arrested [and] there was never a search warrant, but he claimed to have suffered all of these negative consequences as a result of this exposure. He then sued the UMass paper for defamation — falsehoods that allegedly harmed him.
Mathieu: What was the newspaper’s defense?
Medwed: It was a classic First Amendment defense. Under Massachusetts law, it’s known as the “Fair Report” law. Media outlets are allowed, of course, to publish information about matters of public concern. However, the Massachusetts appeals court — the intermediate court here in Massachusetts — agreed with the plaintiff that definition could proceed into court based on the idea that because he wasn’t arrested or there wasn’t a search warrant, basically the issue wasn’t ripe as a matter of public concern and “Fair Report” didn’t apply. Now the case is in front of the SJC.
Mathieu: I’m curious how you think that will turn out. That could be precedent setting for for all journalists.
Medwed: I think that’s right. It’s always hard to read the tea leaves, but I think — and in fact hope — that the SJC reverses the appeals court and creates a more robust vision of the “Fair Report” privilege. For one thing, I think it’s an arbitrary distinction to draw a line between an arrest or a search warrant, on the one hand, and then making someone a person of interest, a suspect, on the other hand. All of them strike me as newsworthy, all of them should be fair game for media outlets. Second, I think it would have a chilling effect on media outlets if the decision went the other way [and] affirmed the Massachusetts appeals court. We don’t want the media to be timid, tentative [or] apprehensive before publishing stories. Now, admittedly, I am the legal analyst for WGBH and have a self-interest in a robust First Amendment, but I think that’s how the case should go.
