F.A.Qs about Jail, State Hospital, and Court

[Fiwi Karmer 69420]

I wanna say yes, definitely. In some jails they actually have warnings that calls are recorded for evidence purposes, theres no such thing as 4th amendment violation from a 3rd party, if Kengle is posting Chris' shit he might be burning him.

tomorrow could be very interesting then

 

[AnOminous]

tomorrow could be very interesting then

They are not going to have time to get into nonsense like that. They will present the absolute minimum quantum of evidence sufficient for the grand jury to return a true bill.

 

[Whaler]

tomorrow could be very interesting then

It's a Grand Jury indictment, the prosecutor will lay out the framework of the evidence they have and if they (the jury) determines that, yes, the groundwork has been laid out, it'll go to court where the actual trial and all evidence will introduced. That's when things will get interesting.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

Is it possible that the letters chris has been sending can be admitted as evidence? Some of the stuff he's been writing recently has made things seem pretty open and shut.

Yes, but no. Since the contents were never examined by the jail, the people who received them would pretty much have to be there to testify that it was in fact a letter they received in the mail from Chris.

And as I've answered before, there's really no point. There's zero doubt that -- if the crime occurred -- that Chris is the culprit. That's the easy part. The hard(ish) part is proving that the crime happened at all and it's not just Chris making it up, and no confessions from Chris, no matter how detailed, are proof of that in and of themselves.

Once there's proof that the crime occurred, it can be shown that Chris was the only one in a position to do it, and just one single confession (whichever is the most damning and/or easiest to verify) is all that they need. They don't need to go into ridiculous detail about what "soul bonding" is when they have Chris flat out saying "I had sex with Barb because I was horny."

Also any letter where he doesn't describe committing the crime is completely irrelevant. As odious as Chris' recent attitude toward Barb is, it's unrelated to anything that might have happened at the time of the crime. This is not evidence at all.

The only way they would come into play is after a trial has concluded, at sentencing when they discuss the merits of attempting to redeem Chris, and how harshly he should be punished. (For instance to demonstrate that he has no remorse.)

EDIT: And if there's a plea bargain, then the prosecution will not bother presenting character evidence at sentencing since the sentence is already agreed upon and they're not asking the judge to make it any harsher.

 

[Ophelia]

Yes, but no. Since the contents were never examined by the jail, the people who received them would pretty much have to be there to testify that it was in fact a letter they received in the mail from Chris.

And as I've answered before, there's really no point. There's zero doubt that -- if the crime occurred -- that Chris is the culprit. That's the easy part. The hard(ish) part is proving that the crime happened at all and it's not just Chris making it up, and no confessions from Chris, no matter how detailed, are proof of that in and of themselves.

Once there's proof that the crime occurred, it can be shown that Chris was the only one in a position to do it, and just one single confession (whichever is the most damning and/or easiest to verify) is all that they need. They don't need to go into ridiculous detail about what "soul bonding" is when they have Chris flat out saying "I had sex with Barb because I was horny."

Also any letter where he doesn't describe committing the crime is completely irrelevant. As odious as Chris' recent attitude toward Barb is, it's unrelated to anything that might have happened at the time of the crime. This is not evidence at all.

The only way they would come into play is after a trial has concluded, at sentencing when they discuss the merits of attempting to redeem Chris, and how harshly he should be punished. (For instance to demonstrate that he has no remorse.)

This info should be in the FAQ. I’m so tired of people cheering that Chris has fucked himself at trial and Heilberg must be begging him to stop writing.

 

[PsychoNerd054]

This info should be in the FAQ. I’m so tired of people cheering that Chris has fucked himself at trial and Heilberg must be begging him to stop writing.

Nothing in these letters even implies that Heilberg was cutting ties with Chris, or that he was begging him to stop writing shit, the recent letter only says that he "hasn't reached out to him much",

 

[AnOminous]

Yes, but no. Since the contents were never examined by the jail, the people who received them would pretty much have to be there to testify that it was in fact a letter they received in the mail from Chris.

Beyond the logistics of establishing a foundation for admission, Virginia, like nearly everywhere else, has a best evidence rule which more or less requires the original if it is in existence and available. A lot of this stuff not only has no chain of custody worth a damn, but has been folded, spindled, mutilated, etc. by a series of autists.

To get anything less admitted, you need a reason for not having it available and a solid who what when where why as to what the document even is and why it should be considered authentic.

There are uniform laws for the interstate enforcements of subpoenas (and Virginia and Rhode Island both have enacted them), so it is possible, but it requires a fairly complex procedure, involving the requesting court filing a request to a court with personal jurisdiction over the third party, which then issues a subpoena against that party, which is as valid as if issued in a domestic case.

And all this to get some idiot like Kengle to authenticate a bunch of crazy blathering, much of which is inadmissible character evidence anyway.

Once you get past all that there's the question of whether it's more prejudicial than probative so even if all of the above is achieved, it could still be excluded anyway.

And the only thing that really jumped out as particularly useful was the recent admission of mental state, i.e. his knowledge of Barb's cognitive decline, which would generally be relevant only to a rape or other act where lack of consent is an issue.

Other than that, it would just be a lot of work to get cumulative evidence that Chris did in fact have sex with Barb and we wouldn't even be in front of a grand jury if they didn't have enough to be confident they can prove that.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

Once you get past all that there's the question of whether it's more prejudicial than probative so even if all of the above is achieved, it could still be excluded anyway.

Exactly. Most/all of them are just Chris effectively confessing to being a dipshit, not confessing to fucking Barb. They'd probably try to include the earlier "soul bonding" ones if that was *all they had* in terms of fingering Chris, but they wouldn't really need it since Chris was the only other person in the house.

Though it would be amusing to see Heilberg mount a last ditch "unknown rapist broke into the house, took Chris' semen from the fridge, and smeared it on Barb to throw off the trail" defense.

 

[Fiwi Karmer 69420]

Yes, but no. Since the contents were never examined by the jail, the people who received them would pretty much have to be there to testify that it was in fact a letter they received in the mail from Chris.

And as I've answered before, there's really no point. There's zero doubt that -- if the crime occurred -- that Chris is the culprit. That's the easy part. The hard(ish) part is proving that the crime happened at all and it's not just Chris making it up, and no confessions from Chris, no matter how detailed, are proof of that in and of themselves.

Once there's proof that the crime occurred, it can be shown that Chris was the only one in a position to do it, and just one single confession (whichever is the most damning and/or easiest to verify) is all that they need. They don't need to go into ridiculous detail about what "soul bonding" is when they have Chris flat out saying "I had sex with Barb because I was horny."

Also any letter where he doesn't describe committing the crime is completely irrelevant. As odious as Chris' recent attitude toward Barb is, it's unrelated to anything that might have happened at the time of the crime. This is not evidence at all.

The only way they would come into play is after a trial has concluded, at sentencing when they discuss the merits of attempting to redeem Chris, and how harshly he should be punished. (For instance to demonstrate that he has no remorse.)

EDIT: And if there's a plea bargain, then the prosecution will not bother presenting character evidence at sentencing since the sentence is already agreed upon and they're not asking the judge to make it any harsher.

ah, I see, I just figured that since it was basically confessions and stuff they'd try to throw it in somewhere

 

[purpleflurp]

Nothing in these letters even implies that Heilberg was cutting ties with Chris, or that he was begging him to stop writing shit, the recent letter only says that he "hasn't reached out to him much",

We also don't know what Chris' definition of that is. It could be that Heilberg is only in contact once a month or every couple weeks, or Chris could just be sperging that Heilberg has other clients and isn't in the jail 9-5 every day.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

ah, I see, I just figured that since it was basically confessions and stuff they'd try to throw it in somewhere

They can't just throw the letters in as evidence. Every piece of evidence must have foundation established, for relevance, reliability, and authenticity. Most of these letters would fail the relevance test, and authenticating all the letters with all of the recipients would be a *lot* of extra work that is not necessary to obtain a conviction. Arguing reliability (it's Chris) would also take up time.

In absolute priority cases where the state is willing to go nuclear and throw all its resources at it (say, a terrorism case, or a serial killer), they'll go and build foundation for absolutely every scrap of evidence they can. This is not such a case, and they won't bother with crap that will likely just get shot down.

 

[themarchivist2]

Are pre-trials public or closed?

 

[Pointless Sperg]

Are pre-trials public or closed?

For incest, closed, unless for some reason the court, the prosecution, and the defense all agree that it should be open -- § 18.2-67.8. Given that they've kept it closed in J&DR, I assume they'll still keep it closed. This is to prevent the public from seeing evidence that winds up not being needed at trial.

If/when it goes to trial, it will be open. Some other procedural hearings *might* be open if for some reason they're not discussing evidence, or information protected by HIPAA.

If any past sexual conduct of Barb's (either with others or with Chris) is presented in an evidentiary hearing, it *must* be closed -- § 18.2-67.7(C)

 

[AnOminous]

Given that they've kept it closed in J&DR, I assume they'll still keep it closed.

It's pretty standard to do that in any family court with sensitive material. Circuit Court is a court of record and the default is public access.

For incest, closed, unless for some reason the court, the prosecution, and the defense all agree that it should be open -- § 18.2-67.8. Given that they've kept it closed in J&DR, I assume they'll still keep it closed. This is to prevent the public from seeing evidence that winds up not being needed at trial.

If/when it goes to trial, it will be open. Some other procedural hearings *might* be open if for some reason they're not discussing evidence, or information protected by HIPAA.

If any past sexual conduct of Barb's (either with others or with Chris) is presented in an evidentiary hearing, it *must* be closed -- § 18.2-67.7(C)

Those seem to be permissive rules rather than mandatory. I don't see why it's necessary that what happened in J&DR (not a court of record) would be the same in a court of record. It also opens describing what it's talking about:

"A. In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of a felony sexual offense involving a child victim, evidence of the defendant's conviction of another sexual offense or offenses is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant."

Chris isn't accused of any previous convictions of felony sexual offenses involving children, nor is this such a case. And Barb isn't a defendant.

Then it goes on to specify that this pertains solely to the defendant's priors (of which Chris has none):

"B. The Commonwealth shall provide to the defendant 14 days prior to trial notice of its intention to introduce copies of final orders evidencing the defendant's qualifying prior criminal convictions. Such notice shall include (i) the date of each prior conviction, (ii) the name and jurisdiction of the court where each prior conviction was obtained, and (iii) each offense of which the defendant was convicted. Prior to commencement of the trial, the Commonwealth shall provide to the defendant photocopies of certified copies of the final orders that it intends to introduce."

How would it apply to anything related to Barb?

They'll probably seal the gory details if the Commonwealth moves for it, but not pursuant to this particular statute.

 

[Ken_Penders69]

Assuming chris plead not guilty on July 28th is chris able to retroactively change to a guilty plea on today's August 8th hearing or during future appearances?

 

[Ass Johnson]

Assuming chris plead not guilty on July 28th is chris able to retroactively change to a guilty plea on today's August 8th hearing or during future appearances?

Today is just a grand jury hearing. Chris won't be present, neither will Heilberg. This is solely for the Commonwealth to stamp the charges.

He can plead guilty/nolo at any time before a jury verdict.

 

[brahsparagus]

Hypothetically speaking, how could we get this televised like the OJ trial?
Retroactive edit: by 'televised' I of course mean 'recorded in high quality and broadcast on the internet'
I assume that the following need to hold:

• The trial allows public access
• There needs to be enough demand from the viewing public to make it worthwhile to broadcast

The former, we can't control. The latter I'm sure could be organized somehow.
IIRC, the OJ trial had a viewership of about 60% of the USAs population at the time, which is nowhere near what we could get for CWC. Try 60% of the terminally online members of Gen Y/Z.

However, even if its not CNN or whoever, I'm sure there is at least one media company that would have the resources to capture the proceedings in grorious HD for a reasonable sum that could be crowdfunded through one of the various CWC focused communities.

 

[Ophelia]

Hypothetically speaking, how could we get this televised like the OJ trial?

Friend, Chris is not important. He matters to us here, and nowhere else. Much bigger fish than Chris aren’t televised when they go to trial.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

It's pretty standard to do that in any family court with sensitive material. Circuit Court is a court of record and the default is public access.

Those seem to be permissive rules rather than mandatory. I don't see why it's necessary that what happened in J&DR (not a court of record) would be the same in a court of record. It also opens describing what it's talking about:

"A. In a criminal case in which the defendant is accused of a felony sexual offense involving a child victim, evidence of the defendant's conviction of another sexual offense or offenses is admissible and may be considered for its bearing on any matter to which it is relevant."

Chris isn't accused of any previous convictions of felony sexual offenses involving children, nor is this such a case. And Barb isn't a defendant.

Then it goes on to specify that this pertains solely to the defendant's priors (of which Chris has none):

"B. The Commonwealth shall provide to the defendant 14 days prior to trial notice of its intention to introduce copies of final orders evidencing the defendant's qualifying prior criminal convictions. Such notice shall include (i) the date of each prior conviction, (ii) the name and jurisdiction of the court where each prior conviction was obtained, and (iii) each offense of which the defendant was convicted. Prior to commencement of the trial, the Commonwealth shall provide to the defendant photocopies of certified copies of the final orders that it intends to introduce."

How would it apply to anything related to Barb?

They'll probably seal the gory details if the Commonwealth moves for it, but not pursuant to this particular statute.

That was 18.2-67.7:1 -- which is the section regarding kids. You need to look one entry up (no :1 at the end). It covers all of Article 7. That said, I did brain fart and it does not apply since Chris is not charged with sexual assault, and incest isn't even in crimes against the person, let alone article 7.

I still think they're going to close it though, since any party can under 18.2-67.8 (and it specifically lists the incest statute).

§ 18.2-67.7. Admission of evidence (Supreme Court Rule 2:412 derived from this section).​

A. In prosecutions under this article, or under clause (iii) or (iv) of § 18.2-48, 18.2-370, 18.2-370.01, or 18.2-370.1, general reputation or opinion evidence of the complaining witness's unchaste character or prior sexual conduct shall not be admitted. Unless the complaining witness voluntarily agrees otherwise, evidence of specific instances of his or her prior sexual conduct shall be admitted only if it is relevant and is:
1. Evidence offered to provide an alternative explanation for physical evidence of the offense charged which is introduced by the prosecution, limited to evidence designed to explain the presence of semen, pregnancy, disease, or physical injury to the complaining witness's intimate parts; or
2. Evidence of sexual conduct between the complaining witness and the accused offered to support a contention that the alleged offense was not accomplished by force, threat or intimidation or through the use of the complaining witness's mental incapacity or physical helplessness, provided that the sexual conduct occurred within a period of time reasonably proximate to the offense charged under the circumstances of this case; or
3. Evidence offered to rebut evidence of the complaining witness's prior sexual conduct introduced by the prosecution.
B. Nothing contained in this section shall prohibit the accused from presenting evidence relevant to show that the complaining witness had a motive to fabricate the charge against the accused. If such evidence relates to the past sexual conduct of the complaining witness with a person other than the accused, it shall not be admitted and may not be referred to at any preliminary hearing or trial unless the party offering same files a written notice generally describing the evidence prior to the introduction of any evidence, or the opening statement of either counsel, whichever first occurs, at the preliminary hearing or trial at which the admission of the evidence may be sought.
C. Evidence described in subsections A and B of this section shall not be admitted and may not be referred to at any preliminary hearing or trial until the court first determines the admissibility of that evidence at an evidentiary hearing to be held before the evidence is introduced at such preliminary hearing or trial. The court shall exclude from the evidentiary hearing all persons except the accused, the complaining witness, other necessary witnesses, and required court personnel. If the court determines that the evidence meets the requirements of subsections A and B of this section, it shall be admissible before the judge or jury trying the case in the ordinary course of the preliminary hearing or trial. If the court initially determines that the evidence is inadmissible, but new information is discovered during the course of the preliminary hearing or trial which may make such evidence admissible, the court shall determine in an evidentiary hearing whether such evidence is admissible.

§ 18.2-67.8. Closed preliminary hearings.​

In preliminary hearings for offenses charged under this article or under §§ 18.2-361, 18.2-366, 18.2-370 or § 18.2-370.1, the court may, on its own motion or at the request of the Commonwealth, the complaining witness, the accused, or their counsel, exclude from the courtroom all persons except officers of the court and persons whose presence, in the judgment of the court, would be supportive of the complaining witness or the accused and would not impair the conduct of a fair hearing.

 

[brahsparagus]

Friend, Chris is not important. He matters to us here, and nowhere else. Much bigger fish than Chris aren’t televised when they go to trial.

Hence my qualification with a hypothetical. Consider the following list in decreasing order of likelihood of being present at the trial, should we get there:

1. Porcine ragemachine grunting into a cameraphone <--- Def gonna be there
2. Someone's buddy with a decent videocamera and a steady hand <--- not out of the question
3. A small time media company who would do it for $10K <--- also not out of the question
4. CNN with top end TV equipment <--- Def not gonna be there

I'm wondering, realistically, what is the best and most comprehensive footage we can hope to get, assuming a moderate amount of effort eg crowdfunding a bag and then contacting locals who are competent enough to capture courtroom proceedings and the aftermath.