I think it would be fun and interesting for sure, but if you get like 10 days of combined PTO and sick time annually, spending the entirety on that isn’t worth it for me. It's funny that the states on the list of those that don't require the employer to pay for jury duty time are lefty states like California and Washington. I would have expected someone to lobby against making employees foot the cost of government mandated service time in those states.
WE'RE WORKIN' ON IT!!!
If someone invited this sperg they should get some sort of mark of shame on their profile.
I'll give you Chris is weird enough to be mildly interesting to the jaded courtroom drones. After all "he's Internet Famous"
We don’t really do that in the US.
Virginia actually passed a law allowing mentally ill people to use mental illness as a mitigating factor in their defense, and even if that wasn't true, Chris is so obviously unwell that any person that passed jury selection would immediately clock him as a lunatic who isn't all there.
Plenty have but Nick is unique in getting a very harsh sentence (for what he did, not so harsh IMO, but 40 years is a long time). Jonathan Yaniv has been getting his ass pounded in court recently, Ethan Ralph has been convicted of multiple felonies, Tommy Tooter did prison time. Even Chris has been convicted of crimes before, he was just handled with kid gloves until now. That's just the cows that have their own subforums.
Trying to direct the retards to the FAQ is as futile an endeavor as null trying to tard guard Chris, but if I can prevent just one retard from making the same goddamn bullshit NGRI post, maybe it's worth it.
Nope. He went through a litany of psych evaluations this time around and still got felony charges and a referral to a grand jury to charge him. Like every. single. other. psych evaluation he's got, they've all come up with sane. The grand jury is going to see those reports, and if it is a jury trial, the prosecution is going to bring that up. There's a mountain of evidence that Chris is sane when it comes to this, so Heilberg has a real uphill battle to convince the judge, and whoever else, that Chris is mentally ill enough to warrant no charges or a one way trip to the loony bin.
He has already been to the mental hospital and was released after the standard amount (60 days) due to being considered mentally fit to stand trial.
I'm not advocating for a NGRI, that is retarded. I'm just pointing out that Chris/Heilberg can use that Chris is mentally ill as a mitigating factor in his defense for a lighter sentence under Virginia law. In some states, being mentally ill but not to the point of being incompetent to stand trial/NGRI cannot be invoked in a defense but in Virginia it's still allowed to be introduced as a mitigating factor during sentencing. In some states you can't tell a jury that a defendant is mentally ill at all.
Also it is all deep down irrelevant if Chris truly believes himself to be Jesus Hernandez Christ in the flesh, that Sonichu is real and all that other fantastic nonsense. It really has no bearing on the fact that he ducked his mom. You can genuinely believe in all sorts of crazy things and still be legally responsible for your actions.
I’m sure they could make an exception for this unique case
That’s a shame , I hope the judge visits us and genosamual for a comprehensive history for the trial
To quote mental illness as a factor when arguing regarding anything in court i'm sure you'll need a doctor's report/diagnosis to prove it. Complaining about being "stressed by trolls" doesn't count for anything in the legal world. The full report on Chris' condition from the mental hospital will probably be the primary medical report used in the trial, and there's no doubt the Prosecution and Defence already have copies.
Troll stress doesn't count in the real world either. Taints crossed that we get to hear some slivers of information about Chris' mental health.
That's not how a grand jury works, they just look at the facts of the case. Literally all a grand jury does is decide if there's enough evidence to charge someone with a crime, that's it.
*slight tweak that you may know but others might not - the grand jury looks at what the state presents as evidence (witnesses, documentary evidence, etc.) to decide if there is probable cause to believe a crime occurred and that the defendant committed it. Typically there is no counter-evidence nor challenge by the defense to any evidence presented by the state, and typically a defendant does not testify. The state questions its witnesses, and the jurors may also ask questions. They have limited investigative powers and generally just move forward on the basis of the state's presentation.
I agree because while trying to wise up the absolute mongo you were talking to is an exercise in futility, it's a really good FAQ and literally everyone should read it. Someone who isn't retarded and wasn't shitting up the thread with their chromosomal deficiencies probably did go read it. And they should.
I have no choice, I just skip a ton of pages and hope if something important or interesting came up it's still being discussed.
