Chris - The Legal Issues - A Prosecutor's Perspective

[Pointless Sperg]

I could see Chris going with an Alford plea, just to justify his 'healing' of Barb.

The prosecutor might not accept that in the deal.

 

[Ophelia]

I could see Chris going with an Alford plea, just to justify his 'healing' of Barb.

I’ve been told those are rare. “No contest” is more common?

 

[Second-Hand Boat Supplies]

Generally the attorney is expected to make the determination if the plea is made with understanding of what it means, and the court will accept it because presumably the attorney is working in the defendant's best interests.

Also you can only plead guilty to something you're charged with in the first place, so you can't just plead guilty to random stuff. If the charges are amended, some sort of probable cause has to be presented for that amendment.

The situation you're describing where an implausible guilty plea could happen would only really come up if the prosecutor was doing something shady. The judge is supposed to catch that and ask for more information.

Regarding "no contest" pleas, yes, you can make those. They're functionally similar to a guilty plea except you don't go on record as having admitted to it. It means you're not going to argue with the evidence, just with the likely verdict from it. It's a mostly unimportant distinction, legally, but it can come into play later if there's a civil lawsuit. However, in Virginia, a no contest plea is still admissible as evidence in a civil suit.

A similar plea is an "Alford plea" where you essentially state that you don't think you can win, but still don't agree with the facts of the case. There's really little difference functionally, you're just morally professing your innocence more strongly.

Thanks as always for the detailed answers. Do you have any sense of when prosecutors would or would not press for a more detailed or explicit admission as part of a plea bargain? Is that something they can do?

 

[Pointless Sperg]

I’ve been told those are rare. “No contest” is more common?

Yes. "No contest" is more acceptable to a prosecutor because you're basically agreeing "Yeah all that evidence sure makes me look guilty. I don't think I am but if I look at it from your perspective, I can see how it seems that way".

An Alford plea is more like "I dindu nuffin wrong and the evidence is fake but the man is keeping me down and I ain't gonna fight it no more cuz I don't want the gas chamber."

The first means you're admitting you can't defend yourself effectively with the evidence there is, the second is just saying you're giving up but still defiant morally.

EDIT: Of course people like the Gunt will plead "no contest" and then immediately afterward say whatever shit they feel like.

Thanks as always for the detailed answers. Do you have any sense of when prosecutors would or would not press for a more detailed or explicit admission as part of a plea bargain? Is that something they can do?

The prosecutor can ask for pretty much anything, but it has to be something realistic that the defense is willing to do. Generally they don't want anything too performative, but sometimes they demand an apology to the victims. They usually don't want or need more detailed information unless it's about others who were involved in the crime or if there's something about the crime they don't understand that will help them with future crimes. (e.g. part of the deal is the master bank burglar explaining how he was able to bypass the security system).

 

[A-№1]

if chris hadnt raped his elderly mother, one of the other 2 might have helped him

If Chris hadn't fucked his mother, he wouldn't need their help (yet).

Chris burned through all his relatives, and now has no recourse but to fall on the tender mercy of the state (and the weens).

Portland or any "liberal" shithole is filled with troons and other retards. You know what that means? That means he's not special.

Nobody in Portland is special. That said, Chris wouldn't last five minutes there.

Maybe before Barbrape. After that, I'd be fuck this loser, may he burn in Hell.

Fucking his mother was what finally burned his relatives. Most of the "high functioning" people stuck in tard homes are like that. Either their family can't handle them any more (a 5 foot 40 year old single mother is not going to be able to manage a profoundly retarded 6 foot 20 year old son), or their family refuses to deal with them any more (because fuck Chris).

I might even be sympathetic enough to Barb to help her, which is why that particular rumor seems plausible.

Oddly enough, being tardfucked by Chris seems to be the one thing to redeem her in her relatives' eyes. I doubt it was worth it.

Before the incest, his relatives might possibly have seen Chris as the poor victim of Barb's shitty upbringing. After the incest, no.

I often wonder if it was Chris's behavior that made his family ban the Chandlers from their homes, but it was probably Barb.

It was Barb. On both sides.

She alienated her own family by being a creepy slag and (according to rumor) attempting to seduce her inlaws. She alienated Bob's family by being a creepy slag and trapping Bob in baby jail by getting pregnant with Chris (I am not convinced Chris is actually Bob's son).

Just because Chris is awful does not mean Barb is good.

Any tard home Chris will be sent to will be voluntary.

Voluntary in the sense that his only other option is the street.

I ask because I genuinely wonder if Chris would refuse to admit to intercourse and maintain that he 'soul bonded' if faced with that situation.

The court is concerned with what Chris actually did, not how Chris chooses to portray it.

Chris could try a nolo contendre plea if he goes to trial, but there's no way in hell the prosecution would accept that as part of a plea deal. They are already going to some lengths by keeping Chris in the J&DR court and wobbling his charges down to a misdemeanor. After doing all that for Chris, the prosecution is not going to settle for a nolo plea.

 

[Second-Hand Boat Supplies]

The prosecutor can ask for pretty much anything, but it has to be something realistic that the defense is willing to do. Generally they don't want anything too performative, but sometimes they demand an apology to the victims. They usually don't want or need more detailed information unless it's about others who were involved in the crime or if there's something about the crime they don't understand that will help them with future crimes. (e.g. part of the deal is the master bank burglar explaining how he was able to bypass the security system).

Chris could try a nolo contendre plea if he goes to trial, but there's no way in hell the prosecution would accept that as part of a plea deal. They are already going to some lengths by keeping Chris in the J&DR court and wobbling his charges down to a misdemeanor. After doing all that for Chris, the prosecution is not going to settle for a nolo plea.

When a defendant enters a guilty plea, are they stating "yes, I admit to the actions the prosecution claims I performed which resulted in the charges against me" or are they only accepting the charges? In most practical senses the distinction probably doesn't matter that much, but I'm just curious about the legal nuances.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

(I am not convinced Chris is actually Bob's son).

Horror movie plot twist -- Barb raped Cole and that's why he hates her. Chris is actually Cole's son, and that's why Chris is retarded.

EDIT: Ah, I see this has already been brought up:

https://kiwifarms.st/threads/what-if.662/page-1102#post-4226230

When a defendant enters a guilty plea, are they stating "yes, I admit to the actions the prosecution claims I performed which resulted in the charges against me"

Yes.

 

[A-№1]

When a defendant enters a guilty plea, are they stating "yes, I admit to the actions the prosecution claims I performed which resulted in the charges against me" or are they only accepting the charges?

A guilty plea means you're admitting guilt. You are admitting you did it.

In most practical senses the distinction probably doesn't matter that much, but I'm just curious about the legal nuances.

If you enter a guilty plea, you are largely fucked in any subsequent civil lawsuit, because you are admitting you did the crime. A nolo plea offers you a much better chance in civil court. That's an important distinction.

Horror movie plot twist -- Barb raped Cole and that's why he hates her. Chris is actually Cole's son, and that's why Chris is retarded.

EDIT: Ah, I see this has already been brought up:

https://kiwifarms.net/threads/what-if.662/page-1102#post-4226230

Wasn't that an episode of the X-Files?

At least we can't say the Simpsons already did it (that I'm aware).

 

[Ophelia]

Nobody in Portland is special. That said, Chris wouldn't last five minutes there.

Phil is special, by certain values of “special.”

Wasn't that an episode of the X-Files?

I think they kept the mother on a skateboard under the bed. The writers wanted to make an episode so retarded it would never run again.

 

[Skitterways]

Slight powerlevel, but in this case it is related to my example. I know somebody who has a severely autistic son whom signed him over to become a ward of the state of IL when he became a teenager as he was nonverbal, needed constant supervision, and needed several people to control him when he threw tantrums. She felt she had no choice. He was put in some sort of institution by the state, where they take care of severely retarded people who need constant supervision.

Now, as I am not sure if her son can theoretically leave as he is too retarded to understand anything more than a word or two, but I do know that nobody can take him out of the facility without the state's permission since he became a state ward.

Could something similar happen to Chris, or are there different levels of "tard" facilities?

Let me explain "signing someone over to the state".....especially in Virginia.
I live in the state and I have worked in a few facilities where "wards of the state" were treated. I don't mean to have a tone, but will confess it is a phrase that sets my teeth on edge. So many people act like they can just say: "Here's my 'tard!" and the state will care for them. It's not that simple. Multiple forms, evaluations, and hearings are usually involved in a person becoming a ward of the state.

In the case of your "somebody that I know", if she was a resident of Virginia, she would have to prove she feared for her personal safety to the courts and provide proof from law enforcement and/or medical professionals to sever her responsibility to her adult or underage child.

Or....she would have to prove she was terminally ill/dealing with a debilitating chronic illness/or had some other health problem that caring for her severely autistic child negatively impacted her health to the courts and provide proof from medical professionals to sever her responsibility to her adult or underage child.

Or....death. If a person who is a caregiver for a very disabled person dies and no one else steps up in the family; that person becomes a ward of the state. (BTW the state will try to appeal to the extended family, trying to get one of them to step up in exchange for SSI benefits, etc.)

99.9 times out of 100 that "ward of the state" will go to a privately run facility until they age out or sign out of the group home/facility.

Storytime:
I worked with a ward of the state that was "signed over to the state" by his mother.
She filed multiple petitions trying to absolve herself of his care at 12 years old, based on various incidents between the two of them to the courts, but the law enforcement reports weren't exceptional. Then he set her on fire while she was asleep. She spent a bit of time in a burn unit. He was finally made a ward of the state. His extended family thought of taking him in, but on a 2 day visit, he did something awful and they changed their minds.

 

[A-№1]

Phil is special, by certain values of “special.”

Only to himself. Spend enough time in the world and you find people like Phil are a dime-a-dozen.

wards of the state

Chris is not going to become a ward of the state. For one thing, he is legally an adult. For another, the court merely has a legally imposed responsibility to find somewhere to put him so he doesn't immediately end up on the street. Once the court has discharged that obligation, they will have no further responsibility to or for him. They court will wash their hands of him and hope never to see him again.

His extended family thought of taking him in, but on a 2 day visit, he did something awful and they changed their minds.

Like I said, people end up in facilities only after burning through their families, literally in this case and figuratively.

 

[Skitterways]

Chris is not going to become a ward of the state. For one thing, he is legally an adult. For another, the court merely has a legally imposed responsibility to find somewhere to put him so he doesn't immediately end up on the street. Once the court has discharged that obligation, they will have no further responsibility to or for him. They court will wash their hands of him and hope never to see him again.
Like I said, people end up in facilities only after burning through their families, literally in this case and figuratively.

Yeah, I don't think Chris will ever qualify as a "ward of the state" either.

 

[JanuaryViolet]

Nobody in Portland is special. That said, Chris wouldn't last five minutes there.

Damn straight he wouldn't. ::power level:: I work in the courts in Portland, I see people like him every day, and I also see a lot of people that would cheerfully take advantage of him. If he were on the streets he'd be among them. Sometimes the end is slow, sometimes not.

 

[A-№1]

Yeah, I don't think Chris will ever qualify as a "ward of the state" either.

Would you want to be responsible for him? I doubt even the ASPCA would take him in.

I also see a lot of people that would cheerfully take advantage of him.

They would eat him alive.

I don't know why, but the homeless in Portland are particularly feral. They always have been, but it's gotten a lot worse in the past couple decades. There are worse cities overall (most of them in New Jersey), but very few have a worse homeless population than Portland.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

I don't know why, but the homeless in Portland are particularly feral. They always have been, but it's gotten a lot worse in the past couple decades. There are worse cities overall (most of them in New Jersey), but very few have a worse homeless population than Portland.

They don't really suffer consequences now except with each other. You can tell how bad the homeless population has become but how much they burn each others tents down due to petty arguments.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Chances are he'll likely be thrown into a home at this point. I can't imagine any of his family members wanting to deal with this lunatic anymore.

Chris will be thrown out of any home he gets thrown into or they find to take him. Most likely within 48 hours. Chris is not something that is in any way shape or form compatible with most tard homes. Even the halfway houses for sex offenders expect a rather quiet type who is trying to stay more or less invisible. Chris is not that. Chris is very much the opposite of that. Chris is someone at this point that probably needs a long term locked ward or closed campus psych facility. But there aren't very many of those anymore. Someplace that has a little bit of free movement at least to the lunchroom and back. Regular arts and crafts, and a padded room for when he starts howling and flinging semen and feces. Or trying to portal through a wall.

The end point for Chris is somewhat tragically almost certainly homelessness. Once Barb dies if somehow Chris gets the House and returns to the neighborhood, the neighbors without question will burn it down. Would you blame them? The local police chief will throw the torch into the pool of gasoline himself. But they do seem like nice kind people, the way they stepped up to care for the pets and keep an eye on Barb. So Chris probably won't be in it when they set it on fire... probably. I hate to say it this way, but Chris is right on that borderline between actual madness and retardation, and simply incompetent and stupid. He's not something anybody is going to want to take ownership of. After what he did to Barb you can't trust him with kids or the elderly. Or Women alone. He doesn't really have the life skills needed to survive on his own, but he can fake it well enough such that the courts won't declare him incompetent or assign a guardian.

 

[A-№1]

You can tell how bad the homeless population has become but how much they burn each others tents down due to petty arguments.

I used to think the violence in a homeless population depended in part on the local availability of various drugs. For example heroin makes for desperation, methamphetamine induces violence etc. I was expecting marijuana legalization to mellow things out a bit, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

The end point for Chris is somewhat tragically almost certainly homelessness.

It always has been.

Also: tragically?

It's not a tragedy when he does it to himself. Chris is no Oedipus. Chris is a comedy.

Once Barb dies if somehow Chris gets the House and returns to the neighborhood, the neighbors without question will burn it down.

They won't need to. The bank will be taking 14BLC before Chris ever does.

I hate to say it this way, but Chris is right on that borderline between actual madness and retardation, and simply incompetent and stupid.

Mostly he's just very, very lazy.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

I used to think the violence in a homeless population depended in part on the local availability of various drugs. For example heroin makes for desperation, methamphetamine induces violence etc. I was expecting marijuana legalization to mellow things out a bit, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Weed doesn't cut it when you're self-medicating for how fucked up your life is. It doesn't give you the sense of satisfaction that heroin does (at first, anyway).

The instant Chris tries fentanyl there will be no going back. Just one dose is all it will take.

 

[A-№1]

Weed doesn't cut it when you're self-medicating for how fucked up your life is. It doesn't give you the sense of satisfaction that heroin does (at first, anyway).

Absolutely true, which is why heroin leads to desperation; its users will eventually do anything to get their next fix.

I was just hoping that a higher availability of marijuana would make people less likely to take that first hit of heroin etc. especially considering the consumption methods are so much easier. Smoking a joint is much simpler than using a needle.

I was mistaken.

The instant Chris tries fentanyl there will be no going back. Just one dose is all it will take.

Given how addicted Chris is to "some lego", he's fucked if he gets into any hard drug.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

I was just hoping that a higher availability of marijuana would make people less likely to take that first hit of heroin etc. especially considering the consumption methods are so much easier. Smoking a joint is much simpler than using a needle.

Needle use is down, it's easier to smoke fentanyl. It's actually reduced the number of needles littering the street in some cities. Black tar heroin is also less available because Mexican cartels have figured out how to cook up an analogue using fentanyl, for the people who have a needle habit. The potency and convenience of transportation of fentanyl has changed everything.

Opioids salve misery in a way weed doesn't, at least until they eventually cause more misery than they offset.