Chris - The Legal Issues - A Prosecutor's Perspective

[Professor Iris]

Seek a warrant for Chris' electronic devices

"I mean, it's not like they'll find something that'll make things monumentally worse, right?"

 

[Alexander Hamilton]

If you get the drift.

Tony Zerilli is that you?

 

[turdburger]

Thanks to the OP and other lawyers who have shared the information here.
If this were to go to trial, would all the documentation online be prejudicial and make it difficult to find suitable jurors? That is, would the ease at which jurors might google Chandler's name and find his past arrests and Mia Hamm and all the other stupid shit he has done and the recording of the call where he admits to raping his mother and that she was 'confused' and said no and he sounds more lucid than he has done in years, mean ensuring he gets a fair trial would be difficult?
Can they reasonably find jurors with no prior knowledge and justify housing the jury somewhere with no internet access for the duration of the trial?

 

[Treblinkachu]

Thanks to the OP and other lawyers who have shared the information here.
If this were to go to trial, would all the documentation online be prejudicial and make it difficult to find suitable jurors? That is, would the ease at which jurors might google Chandler's name and find his past arrests and Mia Hamm and all the other stupid shit he has done and the recording of the call where he admits to raping his mother and that she was 'confused' and said no and he sounds more lucid than he has done in years, mean ensuring he gets a fair trial would be difficult?
Can they reasonably find jurors with no prior knowledge and justify housing the jury somewhere with no internet access for the duration of the trial?

If Chris gets a remotely competent attorney, this is going to be a plea deal. Due to the media circus around the case and Chris's whining, there'll be a million appeals based on alleged prejudice once he inevitably gets convicted if he/his lawyer are dumb enough to actually take this all the way to the trial phase. You can't really tell with those because they can sometimes take place decades after the actual trial, when attitudes have changed. But I do doubt Chris would be tried anywhere near the area of Richmond if he did end up in court; he's so infamous there that any lawyer with half a brain would demand a different venue. Anyone involved would be blind deaf and dumb for the duration of the trial; or at least any invested lawyer would argue for it.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Did he say that?

It was something to that effect. I refuse to go dig up the actual quote because it would force me to Wade through Ethan Ralph’s mental miss function given verbal and physical form. I’m still amazed that we had both Gunt and the Cops at a hotel and he didn’t leave in cuffs… again.

 

[I am the Muffin Maker]

Thanks to the OP and other lawyers who have shared the information here.
If this were to go to trial, would all the documentation online be prejudicial and make it difficult to find suitable jurors? That is, would the ease at which jurors might google Chandler's name and find his past arrests and Mia Hamm and all the other stupid shit he has done and the recording of the call where he admits to raping his mother and that she was 'confused' and said no and he sounds more lucid than he has done in years, mean ensuring he gets a fair trial would be difficult?
Can they reasonably find jurors with no prior knowledge and justify housing the jury somewhere with no internet access for the duration of the trial?

They found a jury for the Cosby case bro. No one gives two fucks about this internet autist. At most maybe a change in venire (not even venue, just a pool from a different county).

 

[Professor Iris]

On a side note, I've been watching Larry Lawton's videos for a while. One of the main things he, an ex-con, advocates is that anyone doing time need to educate themselves on the law, and do so thoroughly.

Unfortunately, this is CHRIS we are talking about, so the only end result we will yield from him being told "LEARN THE LAW, STOOPID" is:

 

[DavidFerrie]

BUT IF THIS DOES GO TO TRIAL, THEY'LL ALL HAVE TO WATCH THE DOCUMENTARY AND KIWIFARMS WILL BE PUT INTO EVIDENCE AND GENO AND NULL WILL BE EXPERT WITNESSES, RIGHT?

I'm sorry to disappoint you, hypothetical reader, but no.

Too bad. Can you imagine what a circus that would be? As it is, I suspect the mainstream media will do a much better job than the legal system of putting CWC's 39-year Record of Fail into public consciousness.

And BTW: excellent summary, from a legal perspective.

 

[Bitch Cakes]

Thanks to the OP and other lawyers who have shared the information here.
If this were to go to trial, would all the documentation online be prejudicial and make it difficult to find suitable jurors? That is, would the ease at which jurors might google Chandler's name and find his past arrests and Mia Hamm and all the other stupid shit he has done and the recording of the call where he admits to raping his mother and that she was 'confused' and said no and he sounds more lucid than he has done in years, mean ensuring he gets a fair trial would be difficult?
Can they reasonably find jurors with no prior knowledge and justify housing the jury somewhere with no internet access for the duration of the trial?

Most definitely. Even in Ruckersville, the vast majority of the people there likely have no idea who he is online.

There are probably be people who know him or recognize him from being out in the community, but even that on its face isn’t prejudicial enough to prevent the seating of a jury. I've known of situations in very small towns where the majority of the jurors knew the victim and the defendant in a case and that didn’t impede seating the jury.

The judge orders jurors or perspective jurors not to seek out any information in a case. The vast majority of people who are on jury duty take their duty seriously and don’t go against the judge. And those that do do stupid shit are usually dumb enough to talk about it and wind up getting reported and kicked off the jury anyway.

This isn’t OJ Simpson. This is Chris-Chan. We all know about him because we are autistic fucks, but most people aren’t.

 

[UndercoverRapist]

Isn't Chris essentially judgement proof?

He has no real assets, no wage to garnish, no investments....nada.

Restitution of a dollar or ten million makes no difference.

 

[Mariposa Electrique]

It was something to that effect. I refuse to go dig up the actual quote because it would force me to Wade through Ethan Ralph’s mental miss function given verbal and physical form. I’m still amazed that we had both Gunt and the Cops at a hotel and he didn’t leave in cuffs… again.

I tell you, the only value this generation holds sacred is to bite the hand that feeds them.

 

[RodgerDodger]

Honestly, at this point I just want to know how likely an outcome where Chris and Barb never live together again and Chris is left alone to rot will be.

Not likely at all. Which raises a question. Is Barb still in the hospital? That alone is an indication that the Doctors are unwilling to discharge her home alone. Which probably means they are seeking a bed in a care facility for her. That she hasn’t stormed out AMA is a sign that she is not mentally competent to do so. Or is in much worse shape than we thought. She’s well past the 48 hour evaluation mark.

Sorry if this has been asked before, I’ll finish reading the thread after work:

If Chris takes a plea and has to stay away from Barb what might happen with his living situation since he’s disabled and dependent? Would the court/social workers place him somewhere or would they just tell him to fuck off and figure it out himself?

Are you familiar with the phrase “living under a bridge”?

 

[Alexander Hamilton]

On a side note, I've been watching Larry Lawton's videos for a while. One of the main things he, an ex-con, advocates is that anyone doing time need to educate themselves on the law, and do so thoroughly.

Unfortunately, this is CHRIS we are talking about...

This is one of the big frustrations public defenders have to deal with in their job, even with people who don't have imaginary friends.

Sequence of events usually goes like: Prosecutor gives good offer.
PD conveys to client, recommends accepting.
Client speaks to fellow guests in the jail.
Jailhouse lawyer convinces Client they shouldn't take the deal because they're gonna get off at trial/if their lawyer files the right motion.
Client wants to believe what they hear.
Client tells their actual lawyer "Nah bro we ain't taking this shit you ain't trying to help me. You just tryna fuck me. My buddy downstairs says they can't even prosecute me for this because my girl already filed to drop the charges and if she wants the charges dropped me being on bodycam beating the shit out of her and threatening to kill her doesn't matter. You gotta fight harder for me man..file a motion or some shit."

The judge orders jurors or perspective jurors not to seek out any information in a case.

This is basically the key part. We know that in today's day and age the jury can just go home and google stuff. If they have had some exposure to a case we ask them if it will affect their ability to be fair. Also as was mentioned you'd be amazed how many people don't know even big news in their area.

As an interesting side note, this is the complete opposite of the original point of the jury which was that they /would/ know everybody involved and their reputations, credibility, etc.

Isn't Chris essentially judgement proof?

He has no real assets, no wage to garnish, no investments....nada.

Restitution of a dollar or ten million makes no difference.

Except that criminal restitution as a condition of probation is very different from a civil judgment, because I can revoke your probation and throw you in prison for not paying your fifty dollar a month payment plan.

Chris is definitely civil judgment proof though.

 

[robobobo]

I can't decide if it's charming or sad that this many people believe the country has the means to support disabled adults with no family. See that guy standing on the corner with the 'PLZ HELP' sign? That's the disabled adult with no family. That's where Chris is winding up. What little support does exist is often insufficient and quickly exhausted. It might be enough, maybe, if the person is competent enough and quick enough to snag some sort of job and eke out a living before the support runs out. Someone like Chris, who simply can't conceive of holding a job? He's fucked. The government will send him his disability tugboat, he'll waste it on useless shit, get evicted from wherever he failed to pay the rent, and that's that.

 

[Treblinkachu]

I tell you, the only value this generation holds sacred is to bite the hand that feeds them.

Oh, you and your flattery

 

[Cyclonus]

 

[Dean]

Would Chris be in discussions with lawyers by now? Will we find out who is representing him anytime soon?

 

[Pointless Sperg]

It's always painful seeing how shit the US is at handling tards. The criminal courts are used to handle people who should be in hospitals. In a sane world Chris would've been locked up and forced into care long ago and none of this would have happened. =/ He would have built lots of lego sets and drawn lots of comics, and maybe someday medical science would figure out how to make him not a tard.

He could even be in the section where they're not locked in the facility all the time, he could be with the group that is allowed to go out on supervised field trips into town or even overnight trips with family members that are not senile.

Even without the incest shit, the fact that Chris was somehow trusted to be Barb's caretaker is a crime against both Barb *and* Chris.

Legal folks who read the news, what's the odds of this ever happening in the US someday?

 

[samoajones]

Would being convicted of a felony sink the tugboat permanently?

 

[Unpleasant]

It's always painful seeing how shit the US is at handling tards. The criminal courts are used to handle people who should be in hospitals. In a sane world Chris would've been locked up and forced into care long ago and none of this would have happened. =/ He would have built lots of lego sets and drawn lots of comics, and maybe someday medical science would figure out how to make him not a tard.

He could even be in the section where they're not locked in the facility all the time, he could be with the group that is allowed to go out on supervised field trips into town or even overnight trips with family members that are not senile.

Even without the incest shit, the fact that Chris was somehow trusted to be Barb's caretaker is a crime against both Barb *and* Chris.

Legal folks who read the news, what's the odds of this ever happening in the US someday?

It's more painful that you think someone who isn't really all that crazy should be gladhandled.

Chris is nowhere near institutionalization level crazy. Chris has low level mental disorders, but mostly he's just a gullible fucking idiot who enjoys any attention he can get.

To add, the US takes institutionalization very seriously because you are depriving someone of freedom not due to a criminal act they committed, but because you think they literally cannot function without it. Looney bins would be a hard sell for both sides of the political aisle aside from the most profoundly retarded or insane, even if we now have to deal with roving mentally ill hobos shitting in the streets of san francisco. Despite what some would have you believe, the burden of proof in the legal system and the bar to confine someone for anything other than pretrial detention is very, very high in the US compared to much of the rest of the civilized world.