Justices give influencer do-over against murder-for-hire conviction after wiretapping concerns

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court on Monday called for a new review of a recorded FaceTime call leading to an influencer’s murder-for-hire conviction.

The made-for-TV case asked whether law enforcement could exploit a loophole in a federal law that has protected against illegal wiretapping for nearly six decades. Ashley Grayson said her case is especially significant now that it’s easier than ever to record private conversations or calls.

“The increasing ease with which private and public actors can unlawfully intercept communications with a tool as ubiquitous as a smartphone underscores the need for the court to intervene now,” Grayson wrote.

Grayson, a Dallas social media influencer, met Memphis influencer and hairstylist Olivia Johnson on Facebook in 2017. Grayson offered Johnson credit-repair services in exchange for promoting her business online.

The two later partnered on a 2022 giveaway in which Grayson purchased a home for a single mother. Johnson’s mother received the house and lived there rent free, but Grayson retained ownership, creating friction between the women.

During a trip to Texas, Johnson says Grayson offered her and her husband $80,000 to kill three people who had criticized Grayson on social media. Johnson recorded a FaceTime call in which they discussed the scheme and later used the video to persuade Grayson to transfer the deed to her mother.

Grayson reported Johnson’s extortion attempt to the FBI, leading Johnson to turn the FaceTime recording over to the authorities. Law enforcement then used the video to arrest Grayson and her husband for conspiracy to commit murder for hire.

Grayson argued that the recording could not be used against her under the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act. The 1968 law generally prohibits the interception of oral and wire communications, and a provision known as Title III bars the use of unlawfully intercepted communications in legal or governmental proceedings.

The Sixth Circuit nevertheless declined to exclude the call. In its 1995 decision in United States v. Murdock, the court recognized a clean-hands exception allowing the government to use unlawfully intercepted communications at criminal trials so long as the government played no role in obtaining them.

Both Grayson and the government agreed the clean-hands exception was unlawful. The government, however, argued her appeal should still fail because the application of the exception did not affect the outcome of the case.

The government argued that any error was harmless because other evidence, including text messages and witness testimony, independently supported Grayson’s conviction. Prosecutors also noted that jurors heard a recording of Grayson’s call with the FBI, during which she discussed the FaceTime call at issue.

The Supreme Court threw out the Sixth Circuit’s ruling upholding Grayson’s conviction, ordering the appeals court to further consider the government’s arguments.

Justice Samuel Alito, a George W. Bush appointee, penned a solo dissent from the order. He argued that including the illegal recording was harmless and there was no need for additional review based on the government’s evidence.

“Because the FaceTime recording was cumulative of other overwhelming evidence of guilt, I would deny the petition,” Alito wrote.

Follow @KelseyReichmann Follow @kelseyreichmann.bsky.social