A recent court ruling overturning Michigan’s anti-terrorism law could jeopardize the prosecution of a Michigan State University student accused of posting a online threat to the campus community.
The Ingham County Prosecutor has charged Hope Duncan, an 18-year-old from Eastpointe, with making a false report or threat of terrorism and using a computer to commit a crime. The charges came after she allegedly posted a Snapchat story saying there would be another shooting on campus to a group shared by MSU students.
A screenshot reviewed by WKAR shows that the message posted to the shared MSU 2028 story read: “There’s going to be another shooting at Michigan State. I’m so glad. This school definitely deserves it and everyone here should die.”
But her attorney, Mike Nichols, is arguing a recent decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals overturning the state’s anti-terrorism law means the charges should not have been brought.
“The statute never should have been used for a charge in the first place,” Nichols said.
Nancy Costello is director of the First Amendment Law Clinic at MSU. She says the law was thrown out because it does not fit updated guidelines issued by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023 for what constitutes a threat. Rather than considering how a message is perceived, laws must now consider the state of mind of the person making the alleged threat.
“The prosecutor has to prove that this person consciously disregarded a substantial risk that their communications would be viewed to threaten violence,” Costello said.
Attorney General Dana Nessel has filed an amicus brief asking the Michigan Supreme Court to uphold the law, calling the lower court’s order “erroneous.”
“There is no doubt that the anti-terrorism law has stopped threats that disrupt our state and has saved lives,” Nessel said. “Striking down this crucial law hinders my office’s ability and the ability of prosecutors in all 83 counties from doing their jobs to hold those who threaten our communities accountable, making Michigan less safe.”
But Nichols says even if the law is reinstated, Duncan’s message was simply a prediction that could not be construed as a threat of future conduct.
“It’s just like saying, ‘This is going to happen. The Lions are going to lose. The Tigers are going to win.’ It’s not saying, ‘I’m going to go shoot somebody. I’ve hired somebody to go shoot somebody,’” Nichols said.
The story was posted just days after the MSU community commemorated the two-year anniversary of a campus shooting that took the lives of three students and seriously injured five others. Costello said that context matters in determining whether the message was reckless enough to be considered a threat under the updated guidelines.
“Fatal shootings did occur at MSU, and in fact they’re still being memorialized two years later, because it was such a tragic and shocking event,” Costello said.
Nichols said that Duncan posted the message amid a mental health crisis.
“Whether or not the law stands, I don’t think affects Hope, because what she did was not illegal,” Nichols said. “It was irresponsible and immature, yes. But again, it was a cry for help. She needed help, not handcuffs.”
Costello said that argument would likely hold up better during sentencing than as a defense to not bring charges to begin with.
“This doesn’t necessarily let her off the hook, because, in fact, these horrible events have happened and have likely happened by people who are mentally ill,” Costello said. “A prosecutor cannot just say, you know, this person was having a hard time in their life, they were suffering from mental illness, so therefore they should not be convicted of this or they should not be charged with this.”
Ingham County Prosecuting Attorney John Dewane said their policy is to not comment on pending litigation.
Duncan has a preliminary exam scheduled for March 20.
Produced with assistance from the Public Media Journalists Association Editor Corps funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, a private corporation funded by the American people.