Template:Cite court/testcases#postscript tests

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 }}

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401}}

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401 |archive-url=http://archive.today/2023.12.26-215317/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006%23p401}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401 |archive-url=http://archive.today/2023.12.26-215317/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006%23p401}}

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401 |archive-url=http://archive.today/2023.12.26-215317/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006%23p401 |url-status=live}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401 |archive-url=http://archive.today/2023.12.26-215317/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006%23p401 |url-status=live}}

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401 |archive-url=http://archive.today/2023.12.26-215317/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006%23p401 |url-status=dead}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006#p401 |archive-url=http://archive.today/2023.12.26-215317/https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11156910755936011541&q=478+F.3d+370,&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006%23p401 |url-status=dead}}

• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023 |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}
• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023 |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}

• {{cite court |litigants=Welte v. Sitecom |court=District Court of Munich |date=2004 |url=https://www.ifross.org/Fremdartikel/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf |text= No. 21 O 6123/04}}
• {{cite court |litigants=Welte v. Sitecom |court=District Court of Munich |date=2004 |url=https://www.ifross.org/Fremdartikel/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf |text= No. 21 O 6123/04}}

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Welte v. Sitecom |court=District Court of Munich |date=2004 |url=https://www.ifross.org/Fremdartikel/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf |text= No. 21 O 6123/04}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Welte v. Sitecom |court=District Court of Munich |date=2004 |url=https://www.ifross.org/Fremdartikel/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf |text= No. 21 O 6123/04}}

• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023 |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}
• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023 |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-date=11 June 2023|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional. |access-date=20 November 2023}}

• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |url-status=live |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |url-status=live |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}

• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf|quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |url-status=live |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}
• {{cite court |litigants=Parker v. D.C. |vol=478 |reporter=F.3d |opinion=370 |pinpoint=401 |court=D.C. Cir. |date=2007 |url=http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20230611004201/http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf |url-status=live |quote=As such, we hold it unconstitutional.}}

Encouraging a suicide—without necessarily aiding it—happens in a variety of contexts. A number of online communities engage in suicide advocacy, including encouraging individual members to kill themselves, and the phenomenon of suicide baiting occurs both online and in public spaces, for instance when people attempt to jump to their deaths.{{sfn|Mann|1981}} In many online communities, phrases such as "kill yourself" (often abbreviated "KYS") are commonplace, although such exhortations are often not meant as sincere incitement.

Incitement to suicide is illegal in TK of 192 countries surveyed by Brian L. Mishara and David N. Weisstub in 2015.{{sfn|Binder|Chiesa|2018|pp=60–74}}

There is no law against it at a federal level in Australia, but relevant laws exist four states or territories.{{harvnb|Mishara|Weisstub|2016|p=60}}:{{flatlist|

• New South Wales: Procuring, Counselling or Aiding Suicide
• Queensland: Procuring Suicide by Fraud, Duress or Undue influence
• Tasmania: Instigating or Aiding Suicide
• Northern Territory: Assisting and Encouraging Suicide}}

Assisting a suicide is a crime in most states,{{sfn|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=67}} although rarely if ever considered murder as it once was.{{harvnb|Williams|1957|p=296}}, cited in {{harvnb|Joseph G.|p=434}}. {{As of|2021|1|alt=As of early 2021}}, twelve states make "causing suicide" in one form or another a kind of homicide, either as murder, manslaughter, or either; these offenses tend to overlap with existing homicide statutes.{{harvnb|Binder|Chiesa|2018|pp=111–113}}: Alaska in [https://www.akleg.gov/basis/statutes.asp#11.41.120 Alaska Stat. Ann. § 11.41.120]; Arizona in [https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/01103.htm Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-1103(A)(3)]; Arkansas in [https://law.justia.com/codes/arkansas/2019/title-5/subtitle-2/chapter-10/section-5-10-104/ Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-104(a)(3)]; Colorado in [https://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/files/images/olls/crs2020-title-18.pdf Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 18-3-104(1)(b)]; Connecticut in [https://www.cga.ct.gov/current/pub/chap_952.htm#sec_53a-56 Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-56(a)]; Florida in [http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.08.html Fla. Stat. § 782.08]; Hawaii in [https://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/hrscurrent/vol14_ch0701-0853/HRS0707/HRS_0707-0702.htm Haw. Rev. Stat. § 707-702(1)(b)]; Missouri in [https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=565.023 Mo. Rev. Stat. § 565.023 (1)(2)]; New York in [https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/125.15 N.Y. Penal Law § 125.15]; North Dakota in [https://www.ndlegis.gov/cencode/t12-1c16.pdf N.D. Cent. Code Ann. § 12.1-16-04(2)]; Oregon in [https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_163.125 Or. Rev. Stat. § 163.125(b)]; and Pennyslvania in [https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/LI/consCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&ttl=18&div=0&chpt=25 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2505(a)]. Most states instead have distinct offenses for participation in a suicide. Eleven predicate those laws on physical involvement or overcoming the victim's will.{{harvnb|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=113}}: Idaho in Idaho Code Ann. § 18-4017; Illinois in 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/12-34.5; Indiana in Ind. Code. § 35-42-1-2; Kansas in Kan. Stat. Ann. § 21-5407; Kentucky in Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 216.302; Maryland in Md. Code Ann., Crim. Law § 3-102; Michigan in Mich. Comp. Laws § 752.1027 (1993); Ohio in Ohio Rev. Code Ann § 3795.04; Rhode Island in 11 R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-60-3; South Carolina in S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-1090; Tennessee in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-13-216. Thirteen states criminalize intentionally aiding a suicide, without specifying whether physical participating is required.{{sfn|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=114}} Ten criminalize incitement to suicide even where no physical assistance has been provided.{{harvnb|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=115}}: "Finally, a third group of states—California, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and South Dakota—punishes intentionally assisting or encouraging suicide or its attempt. ... Read literally, these statutes seem to criminalize both substantial and non-substantial acts of assistance, along with all kinds of verbal encouragement, even if quite minimal. ... We have not found any case in which a defendant was convicted for verbal encouragement alone." Citing: {{flatlist|

• Cal. Penal Code § 401 (West 2018)
• Iowa Code § 707A.2 (1996)
• La. Stat. Ann. § 14:32.12 (1995)
• Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 17-a, § 204 (1975)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-49 (1848)
• Mont. Code Ann. § 45-5-105 (1973)
• N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 630:4 (1971)
• N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-16-04 (1991)
• 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2505(b) (1972)
• S.D. Codified Laws § 22-16-37 (1939)}}

Binder and Chiesa find no case where someone was convicted of incitement without some physical aspect.{{sfn|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=115}} With the exception of the Mississippi Supreme Court in Williams v. State (2010),{{harvnb|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=115}}, citing {{harvnb|Williams v. State|p=745}}: "It bears repeating that the statute that prohibits assisting suicide includes language that encouragement or assistance 'in any manner' may be a punishable act." courts have been reluctant to apply such broad interpretations, even when allowed by the plain-text meaning of the statute.{{sfn|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=111}} For instance, in In Re Ryan N. (2001) the California Court of Appeals held that "mere verbal solicitation", even if encompassed by the relevant statute's literal meaning, did not create the necessary actus reus for a conviction.{{harvnb|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=116}}, citing {{harvnb|Ryan N.}}. In People v. Campbell (1983), the Michigan Court of Appeals quashed common law murder charges against a man who encouraged his wife's lover's talk of suicide and then gave him a gun and bullets. The court found that roughly a third of states criminalized such incitement, but that none treated it as murder, and furthermore found it "not clear that incitement to suicide was ever considered murder at the common law".{{harvnb|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=108}}, citing {{harvnb|Campbell}}.

William Francis Melchert-Dinkel, a licensed practical nurse from Faribault, Minnesota,{{sfn|Davey|2010}} claimed in a number of online interactions to be a suicidal female registered nurse and offered assistance to people seeking to commit suicide.{{harvnb|Schoeberl|2015|p=412}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2012|p=711}}. He falsely offered to engage in suicide pacts with his correspondents,{{harvnb|Binder|Chiesa|2018|p=114}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2014a|p=15}}. and provided one of them, Mark Drybrough, with step-by-step instructions on how to hang himself. Drybrough hanged himself in 2005. After the suicide of Nadia Kajouji in 2008, police found her correspondence with Melchert-Dinkel, which led to his arrest and indictment for "two counts of advising and encouraging suicide in violation of Minnesota Statutes section 609.215".{{harvnb|Schoeberl|2015|p=411–412}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2011|p=17}}, and {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2012|p=711}}. He was convicted on both counts, and the conviction was affirmed by the Minnesota Court of Appeals.{{harvnb|Schoeberl|2015|p=409}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2011|p=19}}, and {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2012|p=705}}.

On appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, Melchert-Dinkel sought to have § 609.215{{sfn|Minn.Stat. § 609.215}} struck down as a violation of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, including in its criminalization of "assist[ing]" suicide.{{harvnb|Schoeberl|2015|p=412}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2012|p=712}}. The court considered three arguments by the state under which Melchert-Dinkel's speech might not be protected: That it was speech integral to criminal conduct, that it was incitement, and that it involved "deceit, fraud, and lies".{{harvnb|Schoeberl|2015|p=414}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2014a|p=19}}.{{harvnb|Harvard Law Review|2015|p=1280}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2014a|p=21}} The court rejected the first two arguments since suicide is not a crime in Minnesota.{{harvnb|Harvard Law Review|2015|p=1282}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2014a|pp=19–21}} Regarding the third, it looked to United States v. Alvarez, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that "speech is not unprotected simply because the speaker knows that he or she is lying", and concluded that since Melchert-Dinkel gained no material advantage from his lies, they were not fraud and were thus protected under Alvarez.{{harvnb|Harvard Law Review|2015|p=1285}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2014a|pp=21}} It severed the words "advises" and "encourages" from the statute, while leaving in place the offense of "assist[ing] another in taking the other's own life".{{harvnb|Schoeberl|2015|p=427}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2014a|p=24}}.{{harvnb|Harvard Law Review|2015|p=1280}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2014a|pp=23–24}}{{harvnb|Schoeberl|2015|p=417}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2012|p=712}}.

On remand, Melchert-Dinkel was convicted under the remaining portion of the statute, for assisting Drybrough by providing the instructions on hanging himself and for attempting to assist Kajouji by providing instructions that she ultimately did not use.{{harvnb|Schoeberl|2015|p=416–417}}, citing {{harvnb|Melchert-Dinkel|2014b}}. He received a five-year sentence, with the first 178 days to be served in jail,{{sfn|BBC|2014}} as well as ten years' probation.{{sfn|AP|2015}} Subsequent to his release from jail, the Minnesota Court of Appeals overturned his conviction for attempt to assist in Kajouji's suicide, but upheld his conviction for assisting in Drybrough's.{{sfn|AP|2015}}{{sfn|Melchert-Dinkel|2015}}

{{reflist}}

Books and scholarly articles

• {{cite journal |last1=Binder |first1=Guyora |last2=Chiesa |first2=Luis |title=The Puzzle of Inciting Suicide |url=https://www.law.georgetown.edu/american-criminal-law-review/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2019/01/56-1-The-Puzzle-of-Inciting-Suicide.pdf |access-date=24 September 2022 |work=American Criminal Law Review |publisher=Georgetown University Law Center |publication-place=Washington, D.C. |volume=56 |issue=1 |year=2018 |pages=65–133}}
• {{cite journal |author1= |title=State v. Melchert-Dinkel: Minnesota Supreme Court Determines that False Claims Used to Advise or Encourage Suicide Do Not Fall Within the Alvarez Fraud Exception. |journal=Harvard Law Review |date=2015-02-10 |volume=128 |pages=1280–1287 |url=https://harvardlawreview.org/2015/02/state-v-melchert-dinkel/ |access-date=24 September 2022 |department=Recent Cases }}
• {{cite journal|last=Mann |first=Leon|date=1981|title=The baiting crowd in episodes of threatened suicide|journal=Journal of Personality and Social Psychology |publisher=American Psychological Association |volume=41|issue=4|pages=703–9|doi=10.1037/0022-3514.41.4.703|pmid=7288565}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Mishara |first1=Brian L. |last2=Weisstub |first2=David N. |author2-link=David N. Weisstub |title=The legal status of suicide: A global review |journal=International Journal of Law and Psychiatry |publisher=International Academy of Law and Mental Health |date=January 2016 |volume=44 |pages=54–74 |doi=10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.08.032 |url=https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0160252715001429 |url-access=subscription |via=ScienceDirect}}
• {{cite journal |last1=Schoeberl |first1=James |title=Constitutional Law: How Minnesota Unconstitutionally Broadened Its Assisted-Suicide Statute—State v. Melchert-Dinkel |journal=William Mitchell Law Review |date=1 January 2015 |volume=41 |issue=1 |pages=398–430 |url=http://open.mitchellhamline.edu/wmlr/vol41/iss1/14 |access-date=26 September 2022 |issn=0270-272X}}
• {{cite book |last1=Williams |first1=Glanville |author-link1=Glanville Williams |title=The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law |date=1957}}

News articles

• {{cite news |title=Former nurse helped instruct man on how to commit suicide, court rules |url=https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/28/minnesota-suicide-conviction-william-melchert-dinkel-mark-drybrough |access-date=26 September 2022 |work=The Guardian |agency=Associated Press |date=28 December 2015 |language=en }}
• {{cite news |last1= |title=Melchert-Dinkel gets half-year in jail over web suicides |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-29633436 |access-date=26 September 2022 |work=BBC News |date=15 October 2014 }}
• {{cite news|last=Davey |first=Monica |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/14/us/14suicide.html |title=Online Talk, Suicides and a Thorny Court Case |newspaper=The New York Times |date=May 13, 2010 |accessdate=September 26, 2022 |page=A1}}

Court decisions and statutes

{{div col}}

• {{cite web |author1= |title=609.215 Suicide. |url=https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.215 |website=Office of the Revisor of Statutes |publisher=Minnesota Legislature |access-date=25 September 2022 }}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=People v. Campbell |vol=335 |reporter=N.W.2d |opinion=27 |court=Michigan Court of Appeals |date=21 March 1983 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2002098/people-v-campbell/ |access-date=25 September 2022 }}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=In Re Joseph G. |vol=667 |reporter=P.2d |opinion=1176 |court=Supreme Court of California |date=29 August 1983 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1145234/in-re-joseph-g/ |access-date=24 September 2022 }}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=In Re Ryan N. |vol=112 |reporter=Cal.Rptr.2d |opinion=620 |court=California Court of Appeals |date=23 October 2001 |url=https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2256546/in-re-ryan-n/ |access-date=25 September 2022 }}
• State v. Melchert-Dinkel:
• {{cite court/sandbox |vol=2011 |reporter=WL |opinion=893506 |court=Minnesota District Court |date=March 15, 2011 |ref={{sfnref|Melchert-Dinkel|2011}}}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |vol=816 |reporter=N.W.2d |opinion=703 |court=Minnesota Court of Appeals |date=17 July 2012 |url=https://casetext.com/case/state-v-melchertdinkel |access-date=26 September 2022 |ref={{sfnref|Melchert-Dinkel|2012}}}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |vol=844 |reporter=N.W.2d |opinion=13 |court=Minnesota Supreme Court |date=19 March 2014 |url=https://casetext.com/case/state-v-melchert-dinkel |access-date=25 September 2022 |ref={{sfnref|Melchert-Dinkel|2014}}}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |opinion=66-CR-10-1193 |date=8 September 2014 |ref={{sfnref|Melchert-Dinkel|2014b}}}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |opinion=A15-0073 |court=Minnesota Court of Appeals |date=28 December 2015 | url=https://casetext.com/case/state-v-melchert-dinkel-1 |access-date=26 September 2022 |ref={{sfnref|Melchert-Dinkel|2015}}}}
• {{cite court/sandbox |litigants=Williams v. State | vol=53 |reporter= So.3d |opinion=734 |court=Mississippi Supreme Court |date=10 November 2010 |url=https://cite.case.law/so-3d/53/734/ |access-date=25 September 2022 }}

{{div col end}}