Chris - The Legal Issues - A Prosecutor's Perspective

  • 🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
I ask this based on your trial experience and impressions. I don't know if there is objective evidence one way or the other.

In the (extremely unlikely) event this went to a trial and the charges were very serious, would a person like Chris be a sympathetic character for a jury? As a prosecutor what would you anticipate the legal strategy of the defense team to be?
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: chickenbutt, Dork Of Ages, DorkInsets and 1 other person
Alexander Hamilton said:
Yes. Because what matters is the elements of the statute. The wording is 'twice put in jeopardy' not 'twice convicted'.

We wrote the Constitution this way to stop exactly that - me going "Huh I lost at trial cause I couldn't prove F. Oh well, rearrest him boys. I've got an idea . . .'
Click to expand...
Besides the jury room is a black box. Nobody knows what the reasons for "Not Guilty" were.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Dork Of Ages, Old Man Mario and DorkInsets
Space Cooter said:
I ask this based on your trial experience and impressions. I don't know if there is objective evidence one way or the other.

In the (extremely unlikely) event this went to a trial and the charges were very serious, would a person like Chris be a sympathetic character for a jury? As a prosecutor what would you anticipate the legal strategy of the defense team to be?
Click to expand...

Maybe? Jurors can both sympathize and be afraid of the mentally ill. But this isn't the sort of thing that goes to trial unless Chris was just insistent on it and his appointed attorney was unable to have him declared incompetent. This sort of insanity is ripe for a plea.
 
  • Agree
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: chickenbutt, Berserker Armor, glass_houses and 4 others
Space Cooter said:
I ask this based on your trial experience and impressions. I don't know if there is objective evidence one way or the other.

In the (extremely unlikely) event this went to a trial and the charges were very serious, would a person like Chris be a sympathetic character for a jury? As a prosecutor what would you anticipate the legal strategy of the defense team to be?
Click to expand...

For the right jury? A jury that believes we have an incarceration crisis, thinks treatment and rehabilitation should always come before prison, and is very modern and definitely wouldn't want to send a trans person to prison? Sure. The problem is Barb is a far more sympathetic character. Also, once Chris gets up on the stand and starts talking about being divine . . . you'd really need a lot of client control and prep work.

I would expect the legal strategy of the defense team to not go to a jury trial under any circumstances. Either take a good plea deal or go to a Judge because (in theory) a Judge is more dispassionate and with a good PSI, mental health evidence . . . maybe you have a shot at something more than super jail for a long time.

But the client controls the representation, so lets assume Chris insists on going to a jury trial. At that point strategy is get jury selection right, get a mental health expert, try to convince Chris not to testify and then pray. Pray really, really hard.
 
  • Informative
  • Winner
  • Like
Reactions: lurking for the deets, chickenbutt, JanuaryViolet and 25 others
Alexander Hamilton said:
For the right jury? A jury that believes we have an incarceration crisis, thinks treatment and rehabilitation should always come before prison, and is very modern and definitely wouldn't want to send a trans person to prison? Sure. The problem is Barb is a far more sympathetic character. Also, once Chris gets up on the stand and starts talking about being divine . . . you'd really need a lot of client control and prep work.

I would expect the legal strategy of the defense team to not go to a jury trial under any circumstances. Either take a good plea deal or go to a Judge because (in theory) a Judge is more dispassionate and with a good PSI, mental health evidence . . . maybe you have a shot at something more than super jail for a long time.

But the client controls the representation, so lets assume Chris insists on going to a jury trial. At that point strategy is get jury selection right, get a mental health expert, try to convince Chris not to testify and then pray. Pray really, really hard.
Click to expand...

Thank you. I know a trial is almost impossibly unlikely...but Chris is a lolcow and they tend to choose the most narcissistic and/or self destructive option possible. Also a trial would be what we all deserve after covid lockdowns.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: lurking for the deets, chickenbutt, Clotso Coof and 4 others
If Chris wanted to go to trial and his defense allowed that to happen... that would be very wow. If I were Chris's attorney I would say no until he got mad and tried to ditch me and/or represent himself, then I would argue to the judge that Chris is not competent to aid in his own defense or to represent himself (obviously). Or tell Chris's new attorney that Chris is not competent to aid in his own defense in my opinion, be ready for the ride. Anything to keep Chris from being in front of a jury in any capacity.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
Reactions: chickenbutt, Bunny at Law, anonymong and 3 others
Hogar Grupal said:
Well, look like he's held for it (incest).
Click to expand...
So, without having read any of this thread, how is Barb not also charged with incest in this case? She's not a child, we don't know for certain that she's regressed to a mental state indicative of dementia (it's been confirmed by Chris previously that she hammed it up for a lot of the 2017-2018 era begging videos). So ultimately, unless Barb testifies that her participation in the hanky panky wasn't consensual, isn't she just as liable to the incest charges as Chris? I would think, if anything, Chris's autism card would work in his favor here since he's legally mentally disabled and thus would not be viewed as having the power in this situation (though maybe given that Chris is essentially Barb's caregiver he has a power pull).
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Dork Of Ages and DorkInsets
Here's a little line from Alexander's post: "Entrapment is only a defense when the government does it to you. Random trolls convincing you to do it doesn't meet the legal standard."

Right now there's a morbidly obese manlet with a BPD fetish who needs to specifically read that line. We know you're here Guntilda put the pills and donuts down and re-read that line, slowly since we know you have trouble with this sort of thing.
 
  • Winner
  • Like
  • DRINK!
Reactions: lurking for the deets, make_it_so, PhoBingas and 30 others
dacwcman68 said:
So, without having read any of this thread, how is Barb not also charged with incest in this case? She's not a child, we don't know for certain that she's regressed to a mental state indicative of dementia (it's been confirmed by Chris previously that she hammed it up for a lot of the 2017-2018 era begging videos). So ultimately, unless Barb testifies that her participation in the hanky panky wasn't consensual, isn't she just as liable to the incest charges as Chris? I would think, if anything, Chris's autism card would work in his favor here since he's legally mentally disabled and thus would not be viewed as having the power in this situation (though maybe given that Chris is essentially Barb's caregiver he has a power pull).
Click to expand...
If it goes to trial, it will be something. It largely rests if the state can prove Barb's dementia. There is evidence that Barb has raised Chris under manipulation. But the proof would be that it they'd have to pin it on Chris, since he appears to be the instigator if the texts, audio and Chris' email to Null can be taken to account.

In my opinion, I can see Barb putting Chris under the bus to save herself.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: weegrumpy, Berserker Armor, Sicko Hunter and 7 others
Sassy Witch 🐬🎶🗡 said:
My big question that I haven't seen anyone talk about is....

What about Cole? If Cole has been notified and cares about his mom, could he come and take her back to NY?
Click to expand...
Cole wants nothing to do with his mom. He views her as an abuser. There's basically 0% chance that Cole will get involved with this. He's probably just gonna let the Virginia government deal with her.
 
  • Agree
  • Like
  • Feels
Reactions: The Cunting Death, weegrumpy, PhoBingas and 21 others
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back