Supreme Court Orders New Review for Texas Influencer's Murder-for-Hire Conviction
Justices in Washington sent Ashley Grayson's case back to a federal appeals panel after prosecutors acknowledged the circuit court had relied on an incorrect rule regarding a secretly recorded call.
Supreme Court Orders New Review for Texas Influencer's Murder-for-Hire Conviction
The nation's highest court on Monday directed a federal appellate panel to take another look at the conviction of Ashley Grayson, a Texas social media figure sentenced to a decade behind bars for attempting to arrange a rival's killing. The move came after government lawyers conceded the appeals court had applied an erroneous legal standard.
Grayson was found guilty of soliciting homicide against another online personality. Central to the prosecution was a FaceTime exchange between Grayson and Olivia Johnson, an up-and-coming influencer who had covertly taped the conversation. During the call, Johnson requested partial payment for a murder Grayson had commissioned, though Johnson never took steps to complete the act.
Defense attorneys sought to exclude the recording from the trial, pointing to federal statutes that prohibit both the unauthorized interception of electronic communications and the use of such material as courtroom evidence.
The presiding trial judge allowed the jury to hear the tape under a doctrine called the "clean hands" exception. The Cincinnati-based appeals court upheld this decision, citing a three-decade-old opinion stating that suppression is unnecessary when authorities had no role in the illegal interception.
Grayson then petitioned the Supreme Court, contending — with backing from federal prosecutors — that the Wiretap Act contains no such loophole and that the appeals court's stance diverges from other circuits.
The Solicitor General recommended the justices either refuse the petition or remand for reconsideration. He characterized the dispute as exceedingly rare, noting it was the first instance in 30 years that the circuit had invoked its 1995 precedent. He further observed that the mistake may prove harmless, as it has not been established whether the recording was actually obtained in violation of law.
In a brief, unsigned opinion, the justices sent the matter back to the lower tribunal. Justice Samuel Alito disagreed, arguing in a short dissent that the conviction rested on ample other proof regardless of the disputed audio.
Separately, the bench declined to hear two additional criminal petitions, drawing written objections. Alito, with Justice Clarence Thomas joining, protested the refusal to review the matter of Dontae Carter, convicted in the capital on weapons charges after officers asked him to adjust his clothing during a street encounter. The local appeals court had vacated Carter's convictions, finding the police interaction coercive and noting race as a factor in whether a reasonable person would feel free to leave. The court's liberal wing also dissented from the denial of review in a Texas capital case, where an inmate sought a fresh proceeding to assess whether intellectual disability bars his execution.
Source: SCOTUSblog
Source: Google News MT — Crime (en)