Key Facts at a Glance
Summary Table
| Attribute | Verified Detail | Source Type |
|---|---|---|
| Case name | State v. Geyser | Court records |
| Crime | Attempted first-degree intentional homicide | Indictment |
| Victim | Payton Leutner | Court documents |
| Verdict | Guilty on all counts (July 2017) | Verdict form |
| Sentencing | Life imprisonment with possibility of parole after 40 years | Sentencing order |
| Location | Waukesha, Wisconsin | Law enforcement reports |
| Date of crime | May 31, 2014 | 911 and incident reports |
The Events Leading to the Verdict
The Slenderman verdict refers to the 2017 conviction of two then-teenage girls in Waukesha, Wisconsin, for the attempted murder of their classmate Payton Leutner. On May 31, 2014, the two planned to lure Leutner into the woods and stab her to appease the fictional online boogeyman Slenderman. Leutner survived after 19 stab wounds, and emergency calls from a friend led to her rescue. The case exposed gaps in juvenile mental health support and prompted debates about internet folklore, parental responsibility, and criminal liability for online-inspired violence.
Trial Proceedings and Evidence
Prosecutors presented extensive digital evidence, including search histories, text messages, and planning notes, to prove premeditation. Both girls initially claimed the story of Slenderman compelled them to act. At trial, experts testified about psychosis and suggestibility in adolescents, yet the court rejected an insanity defense. Jurors found both defendants capable of understanding their actions and morally culpable, leading to guilty verdicts on multiple counts of attempted first-degree intentional homicide. This outcome clarified that invoking an internet myth does not absolve criminal responsibility.
Key Trial Dates
- 2014: Crime occurs on May 31.
- 2014–2016: Juvenile court proceedings and transfer to adult court.
- 2017: Trial and guilty verdict in July; sentencing in November.
The Verdict and Sentencing
The jury convicted the defendants on all charges, removing any remaining doubt about their intent and awareness. In November 2017, one defendant received a life sentence with the possibility of parole after 40 years; the other received a comparable sentence with a slightly earlier parole eligibility window. The judge emphasized the need for public safety while acknowledging the girls’ youth and mental health struggles. The Slenderman verdict thus balanced accountability with recognition of developmental factors, resulting in long custodial terms with eventual pathways to release under strict conditions.
Legal and Cultural Implications
The case set precedents for how jurisdictions treat digitally influenced crimes involving minors. It underscored the importance of digital forensics in modern prosecutions and prompted schools and platforms to improve monitoring and mental health resources. Legislators revisited statutes concerning online influence and juvenile sentencing, while mental health professionals gained a high-profile case to discuss psychosis, suggestibility, and early intervention. The Slenderman verdict remains a reference point in discussions about culpability at the intersection of internet culture and adolescent psychology.
Ongoing Relevance and Public Discourse
Years after the verdict, the case continues to inform policy and practice. Juvenile justice reform advocates cite it to argue for better mental health screening and alternatives to lengthy incarceration. Internet safety educators use it to warn about the real-world consequences of online narratives. Victims’ rights organizations highlight the trauma endured by Leutner and the importance of victim-centered responses. The Slenderman verdict retains value as a teaching example of due process, forensic evidence, and the lasting effects of online mythology.