Chris - The Legal Issues - A Prosecutor's Perspective

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Depending on what physical evidence they have, it might just have been enough to make the prosecutor offer a sweetheart plea deal, since fuck dealing with a case like this where even the facts are in doubt.
This is literally his only ticket to continuing to be the Teflon Tard, that the prosecutor undergoes the same absolute brain lock other people, including me, have faced even just trying to fucking think of this shit. All I think is how can this just stop and go away.

I hope the prosecutor is in the same mindset. Because I don't want to think about this shit any more.
 

Alexander Hamilton

kiwifarms.net
So, while looking up how Virginia treats insanity, I found an interesting update on Virginia's mental illness laws:


So at least as of earlier this year, the rule was if you didn't plead Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity you couldn't introduce any evidence of mental illness whatsoever.

If this is till true, and it appears to be, it's an all or nothing deal. Assuming it goes to trial, which it probably won't.
 

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
So at least as of earlier this year, the rule was if you didn't plead Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity you couldn't introduce any evidence of mental illness whatsoever.
I made exactly this claim a few pages ago, but no, Virginia changed the law literally just a few months ago and now you can introduce evidence of mental illness with or without an insanity plea, including specifically AUTISM.

So there is still a possibility of Chris continuing to be a Teflon Tard.
 

FriendshipBunny

Please dont be mean to me.
kiwifarms.net
So, a prosecutor can raise competency in a criminal case. I've done it.

But in that case, you're talking about competency to stand trial and assist in their own defense. And all that means is pausing the proceedings and shipping them off for competency restoration and then when they're back in reality continuing.

What you're asking about in terms of a guardianship is a civil law deal that would be handled in civil court. I'm not sure how it would be handled in Va. but it's important to realize that legally insane to the point of negating guilt and clinically insane are very different standards.

Plenty of people are screamingly insane but perfectly legally sane.
Since you're a prosecutor, fuck you.
 

Alexander Hamilton

kiwifarms.net
I made exactly this claim a few pages ago, but no, Virginia changed the law literally just a few months ago and now you can introduce evidence of mental illness with or without an insanity plea, including specifically AUTISM.

So there is still a possibility of Chris continuing to be a Teflon Tard.

So I found the law you're talking about:


§ 19.2-303.6. Deferred disposition in a criminal case; persons with autism or intellectual disabilities.​

A. In any criminal case, except a violation of § 18.2-31, an act of violence as defined in § 19.2-297.1, or any crime for which a deferred disposition is provided for by statute, upon a plea of guilty, or after a plea of not guilty, and the facts found by the court would justify a finding of guilt, the court may, if the defendant has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist with (i) an autism spectrum disorder as defined in the most recent edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders published by the American Psychiatric Association or (ii) an intellectual disability as defined in § 37.2-100 and the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the criminal conduct was caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the person's disorder or disability, without entering a judgment of guilt and with the consent of the accused, after giving due consideration to the position of the attorney for the Commonwealth and the views of the victim, defer further proceedings and place the accused on probation subject to terms and conditions set by the court. Upon violation of a term or condition, the court may enter an adjudication of guilt; or upon fulfillment of the terms and conditions, the court may discharge the person and dismiss the proceedings against him without an adjudication of guilt. This section shall not limit the authority of any juvenile and domestic relations court granted to it in Title 16.1.

So the question is gonna be can Chris convince a Judge that his crimes were caused by or had a direct and substantial relationship to the 'tism.

Also it says 'after giving due consideration to the position of the attorney for the Commonwealth and the views of the victim' and it's may, so far from mandatory.

The teflon tard may yet fall.
 

feral cat #6385

Meow
kiwifarms.net
I have literally lost my mind. Still, though, the shit I've said about the financial crimes is probably right.

Put yourself in the mindset of a prosecutor. You have a choice between an insanely complicated case about incest.

Or a really simple case about a financial crime.

Which do you pick?
I would assume Chris didn't obey the golden rule of "never talk to the police" and has confessed everything and then some.
 

Alexander Hamilton

kiwifarms.net
I have literally lost my mind. Still, though, the shit I've said about the financial crimes is probably right.

Put yourself in the mindset of a prosecutor. You have a choice between an insanely complicated case about incest.

Or a really simple case about a financial crime.

Which do you pick?

It depends if the incest case comes with sex offense registration. If it does, I probably do both because there's a public safety interest in getting this person into registered sex offense status.
 

Unpleasant

I tell you what
kiwifarms.net
So, while looking up how Virginia treats insanity, I found an interesting update on Virginia's mental illness laws:


So at least as of earlier this year, the rule was if you didn't plead Not Guilty By Reason Of Insanity you couldn't introduce any evidence of mental illness whatsoever.

If this is till true, and it appears to be, it's an all or nothing deal. Assuming it goes to trial, which it probably won't.

On quick perusal, I dont disagree with that. If you are not insane enough to legally be insane, I don't want a sliding scale of feelings about relative mental health crises to be the benchmark for how juries decide cases. Most habitual criminals have mental health problems, were abused as kids, have various traumas, and the like. The law should- mainly- provide a standard. That article feels to me to be written by the sort who would excuse a stabbing because the stabber was an EDP having an emotional disturbance. I think their description of mens rea is superficial and infantile. How can you establish intent, they would say. He didn't mean to kill that person, he thought they were Hitler and he was saving the world. There is no limit to the silly shit attorneys will try and get to stick to a wall. The ruling they are opposed to bars "evidence" of a sort that can be easily doctor shopped and whimsically produced with a good defense team, especially nowadays moreso than in 1985. The very basis of the ruling was an attorney claiming he was having a manic episode in an attempt to enter an NGRI without an NGRI plea- essentially, that he was only periodically incompetent and incapable of forming intent. The ability to declare that someone was only occasionally incompetent as an article of their defense and to require the prosecution to prove otherwise is an extreme burden when taken too literally.

Were the Stamper ruling disposed of and the framework suggested in the article implemented, you'd need a team of trained psychiatrists for jurymembers. You'd need some sort of mental health frye hearing for every case that claimed temporary insanity. It is an attempt to dispense with responsibility for offenses that are provable; to me it doesn't reason out far from claiming that a drunk lacked mens rea because his friends plied him with alcohol until he was blackout drunk and told him to drive home right before he plowed into a car and killed three people. To suggest that his lack of faculty at the time affects his culpability is specious; perhaps he has a mental or personality defect predisposing him to his addictions and should therefore receive special consideration?

I am certain there is much more to it than that, but my knowledge of the Stamper ruling extends to that article, and knowing that the sort of people who write those articles are a lot less interested in justice and a lot more interested in posing interesting legal quandaries that leave innocent people in harm's way over niggling distinctions and technicalities. I don't trust the article to be objective beyond the established bare fact.

What many people here don't get is to be declared not guilty by reason of insanity is both very rare, and a very high burden. Chris is absolutely NOT going to meet that bar.

I may have missed it but that says nothing about providing the mental health information for the benefit of sentencing, however. That, to my mind, is where mitigation (or aggravation) should be considered. It does no good to dispose of offenses and nolle pross the "good stuff" so a violent criminal can plea to a couple of possession charges. Stick him with what he earned and sentence him in a range of mitigation if necessary, outlining the reasons for the same on his judgment of the court. If you can't find a way to work around a mandatory minimum, too fucking bad, that's why mandatory minimums exist in the first place- so you can at least put these worthless cocksuckers in jail for a few months.

It depends if the incest case comes with sex offense registration. If it does, I probably do both because there's a public safety interest in getting this person into registered sex offense status.

Incest is registerable in VA.

I was going to say my state has diversionary mental health court to bridge the gaps that article bemoans but look like VA effectively does now too as anonimous pointed out. This would not IMO be a case ripe for diversion, about the only time I've ever seen a sex offense receive that consideration was for registration violations due to hardship (generally a person is long term hospitalized or incapacitated but nobody can find him to update the registry and they dont want to ding him as a result) and technically registration violations aren't in and of themselves sex offenses.
 
Last edited:

robobobo

kiwifarms.net
Given that sticking your tongue in an elderly relative's cooch is not a generally accepted symptom of autism, I find myself skeptical that that defense will go far. If the 'tism made people rapey, this forum would be the world's largest rape gang and people would tremble at the very mention of us. I could conceive of an autism defense along the lines of, "My client was surprised by an angry yelling man and his autism left him unequipped to deal with a delicate social situation so he struck the man and fled." Not, "My client was sitting in a house with a disabled woman and the autism left him unequipped to not pull down her adult diapers and stick it in her."
 

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
I would assume Chris didn't obey the golden rule of "never talk to the police" and has confessed everything and then some.
This is Chris. He probably actually boasted about every crime he could have possibly committed, because he's Chris and this is the kind of shit Chris does.
It depends if the incest case comes with sex offense registration.
It does.
 

A Random

Lappy's on the case, partner!
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
If the subpoena'd stuff reveals the content we're confirming [that Bella and co. were telling Chris to do it and/or essentially validated him], is there any point where the justice system can even take that into consideration?
 

NerdShamer

International Glownigger Commander
kiwifarms.net
So, what are the odds that the presiding judge will get fed up by Chris being disruptive in the courtroom and sends him directly to the psych ward?
 

Oliveoil

kiwifarms.net
I don't know about Virginia law on who gets to make that call if she's not.
Wouldn't adult protective services step in? the state of the house last time I saw indicates a hoarder.
If Chris does get time, it will be in some kind of minimum security camp, not a hospital. Chris doesn't need constant medical attention or psychiatric care on an intensive level, he just needs someplace where he can eat, sleep, and not be bothered by others as much as possible while having no access to the internet.
I would think an assisted living facility.

I guess a general question. I assume the OP layer does work with psychologists.
With autism patients it depends on how far along the spectrum they lie. Chris is interesting as through the years he has shown difficulty leaving the world he has created. People with autism make up their own characters, self talk and often think the things they see on TV are real. Not an excuse for Chris. How severe he would have to be not to be judged competent? The are people who cannot distinguish reality - not Chris he knows that his mother is his mother. People who go back and forth - I am not that far into the doc but it seems like Chris knows the typical routines of a typical person. I do not know how much he has regressed into his delusions.
This examination would begin with the psychologist trying to hold a conversation with him. I do not see Chris capable of that as he quickly falls into the Sonichu land. His daily routines would be examined. I assume he does not clean up around himself as the past documentaries show his parents getting on his case to clean up. It is a shame that Barb's hoarding is in the equation as with structure Chris would have done much better. That is the case when you have children later in life.

My second question would be how political is this case. We know that prosecutors often see certain cases as wins or losses. I am not saying that is you I am just asking a hypothetical.

I hope we get any kind of records of his interviews. Chris seems to be a case of some delusions, and autism.
 

robobobo

kiwifarms.net
If the subpoena'd stuff reveals the content we're confirming [that Bella and co. were telling Chris to do it and/or essentially validated him], is there any point where the justice system can even take that into consideration?
No. "Lol finger bang ur mom lmao" from a stranger is not going to provide any sort of legal defense. Some random person telling you to do something does not justify you doing it, unless they're telling you to do something while holding a gun on your family or some other clear-cut influence over your actions.
 

AnOminous

μολὼν λαβέ
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
If the subpoena'd stuff reveals the content we're confirming [that Bella and co. were telling Chris to do it and/or essentially validated him], is there any point where the justice system can even take that into consideration?
The only really awesome result could be these fuckers get arrested too and get registered as sex offenders for the rest of their lives.
 
Top