@Pointless Sperg Sorry to tag you like this. Your post is long so I can't directly reply
No problem. I wish that issue didn't occur.
I guess it depends on the state. Every time I've seen a DV or abuse of a family member case there's a mandatory RO. Regardless of competency. It's not even negotiable. It's just standard. But it may very state by state.
It's more of a fast track to issuing a protective order so the petitioner doesn't have to go through the normal hoops to get it issued. The relevant Virginia code is
§ 16.1-253.1 and
§ 19.2-152.10.
It still requires a petitioner. For violent crimes, the prosecutor can do it "on behalf" of the victim, but it can only be on behalf of the victim if the victim is not in a position to disagree.
And really, even if a protective order was issued automatically, it requires the cooperation of the "victim". You can't arrest somebody for violating an order when the "victim" calls them first, or shows up at their home, etc.
(There are some extremely cruel victims who abuse orders by following the restricted person around in public places, forcing them to leave, but that doesn't work at a person's domicile.)
But yeah, when the person is a person who is their own guardian, you can't enforce it without that person's consent.
From what I understand, Alford pleas or nolo contendere are relatively rare and depending on the offense/Judge it may not even be an option. I mean, I believe no contest (throwing yourself upon the mercy of the court) is always an option, but Alford pleas aren't. I thought you had to work that out as part of a plea arrangement and that plea can be rejected through an objection or motion.
They're pretty common. About 17% of non-federal convictions in the US are from nolo or Alford pleas.
I never understood the point of the Alford plea or nolo contendere in a criminal case. You either did it, or you didn't. Any other option and you open the door to appeals. I guess you can say "I didn't do this, but I don't have enough evidence to refute the evidence against me to mount a competent defense or rebuttal". But that'd mean you're guilty.
That's exactly what an Alford plea is. Prosecutors don't like to cut deals for Alford pleas but they'll often do it just to get a case out of the way. nolos are a lot more common in plea deals.
In terms of immediate impact, there is none. It's just a guilty verdict. A nolo or Alford plea can have a follow-on effect in a separate case civil court though, where a guilty plea can be used as evidence of liability, whereas a nolo or Alford plea, while admissible in some places, does not necessarily imply liability.
Oddly, there have been conflicting rulings from federal courts, and currently a nolo plea is actually stronger for the civil defendant in terms of admissibility than an Alford plea. There's been a fair amount of controversy over this.
So if you're worried about later civil cases, plead nolo, not Alford.
In the case of someone like Chris though, it's just a matter of pride. Demanding an Alford plea is a worthless exercise in narcissism.
In the case of Ethan and his nolo, it's probably a mixture of narcissism and worry about being sued over the pics.
I don't know. I don't live in a Commonwealth state. Maybe they do things different in Commonwealths.
I don't think there's much difference. I'm not in a Commonwealth state, but from what I've seen, there's far more differences between states in general rather than there being some particular difference about states calling themselves a Commonwealth.
Wouldn’t someone like Heilberg or a court appointed social worker be there to assist him on release?
I know that it probably is not standard practice, but Chris is not a standard case.
Heilberg's job is done when the case is over. If he even checks in on Chris, it's just out of professional courtesy.
Chris will be connected to a social worker, and it's the job of the jail to see to it that that happens.
Homeless shelters are the 21st century equivalent to Dickensian workhouses.
A Victorian workhouse might actually be something that could do some good for Chris. Beating his ass until he does something productive. In some ways it would be more merciful than his tugboat.
One of the reasons Chris was denied bail for a pissant misdemeanor charge was to keep him the fuck away from 14BLC. I can't imagine the court has changed their mind about that and will send him back there now.
Just a reminder, as I've said it before, it's documented in the newspaper article. The court was offering to negotiate bail with Chris, and when the judge asked Chris what his release plan would be, that's when Chris chimped out about not being allowed to get his toys, and refused to discuss it further until the toys had been recovered.
Chris could have potentially gotten out. Chris fucked it up. Poor Heilberg, he'd only just met Chris at that hearing and didn't know what would happen.
Chris can insist on a jury trial. It might need to be part of an appeal, but he does have the right to face a jury of his (for lack of a better word) "peers". It would be an incredibly stupid thing for him to do, and I'm certain NOBODY (not even his own lawyer) is letting him know of this right, but he can do it.
Yes, it has to be on appeal. The bench trial has to complete first (which obviously means Chris has to plead not guilty). Then on appeal it goes to a jury trial in Circuit Court. This trial is de novo, so it basically becomes like the bench trial never happened and everything starts over again from scratch. It's a massive waste of time, but Virginia has weighed that more people give up in district court than if they could just jump directly to a jury trial.
Heilberg had his own assessment done first thing, probably to figure out what he'd just voluntarily stepped in. His assessment seems to have found Chris fit to face trial or there wouldn't have been the subsequent hearings. It would have gone straight tot the funny factory with Chris for lessons.
The court probably did its own assessment too.
The assessment was incompetent but restorable, so Chris was sent to get lessons. If you are ruled competent you don't get sent off for those lessons.
They don't give you a six month continuance and send you to hospital for an assessment. They do it because you failed your assessment. It's right there in the statute.
EDIT: In his most recent letter, Chris specifically uses the term "Restoration". He would not know to use that term unless he had been told that by Heilberg or the court.
This pretty much confirms that he was sent to be restored to competence, under the 6 month procedure in the relevant statute. I'll need to update the FAQ to indicate that it's confirmed.
Chris is too lazy. He's not going to spend money for guns when he can spend it on some lego.
And this is one of the strongest arguments against there being cheap guns. He did buy pepper spray after all.