Like most every legal and non-legal blog, we have been following the case from the time of the 2006 suicide. From the outset, I viewed the criminal charges as questionable and threatening of protected speech. What I could not understand — and still do not understand — is why the parents did not sue civilly in tort.
The jury found Drew guilty on November 26th of the three misdemeanor charges of illegally accessing a protected computer. Drew had assumed the identity of a boy named “Josh Evans” that, after getting Megan to fall for Josh, proceeded to crush her. All of this was over Drew’s juvenile reaction to what she perceived as an insult to her own daughter.
Judge Wu appears to have made his decision on the basis as a matter of law rather than fact. This will raise questions of why he let the case go to jury in the first place since the defense challenged the original indictment. If Judge Wu now objects to the legal and constitutional basis for the charges, those concerns were equally evident at the arraignment hearing.
Some judges will let cases go to the jury in the hope that the jury will acquit — avoiding an appeal on the basis of a legal judgment. Such legal rulings are not given deference on the appellate court but are rather subject to a de novo standard. Other judges do not want to spare someone like Drew from having to face a trial or see the need for a public trial — even though they harbor questions about the legality of the charges. Then there are many good faith cases where a judge simply did not fully consider the legitimacy of the charges — or the illegitimacy became more evident during the trial. A sentencing will sometimes serve to concentrate the mind of the Court and prompt a second look at an earlier challenge. It is possible that Judge Wu wanted to see if the government could establish a compelling factual basis in the case that would alleviate his concerns over his legal concerns. Those concerns were evident before trial and clearly were not alleviated by the end.
In any case, Drew will now walk free — an thoroughly repellent character, though she is not alone in guilt over this tragic death. This will remain a tragedy where there was no legal recourse — at least no recourse secured by either the parents or the government.
For the latest story, click here.