- Joined
- Aug 2, 2021
You guys aren't really from Ohio so I'm going to have to explain how big of a deal this one is. People literally get shot there. Like you know how you see movies about drive-bys and stuff like that well that's the exact type of location they sent him. They literally sent him to a place that at that time was considered one of the worst ghettos in America. I mean this is the type of place where carjackings happen. He is lucky he did not get robbed or carjacked
So you're saying he missed out on being culturally enriched?
The check was also made out for $0.00. I don't think you could be charged with fraud if you didn't misrepresent the check as being worth actual money.
It's theoretically possible, everytime court meets at the end of a countenance all they have to do is unanimously agree Chris is still incompetent and send him back to western State. Pointless sperg has said that while this is possible OT wouldn't exactly last the rest of Chris's life. After about 5 years they may as well declare Chris beyond anyone's help and have him sent to western State indefinitely until he shows some kinda improvement.
The one caveat is that if after 5 years he's still incompetent, or only 1 year if he's not charged with a felony, they have to drop the charges. The requirements for continuing to be in a State Hospital then go to civil requirements, which are stricter than incompetence. He has to be ruled actually incapacitated/insane.
This is actually a HUGE loophole for some cases where if you are charged with a felony with a long potential sentence, you can get the charges dropped within 5 years, and unless you are found competent in the future, you can't be charged again. (And since the charges are dropped, the court can't order more evaluation unless you're arrested again for something else.) This doesn't really apply in Chris' case though since there's more than one felony they can charge him with, which they can re-arrest him on, and he wasn't likely to get more than 5 years anyway.
Or, less likely, they have to have added rape charges, and have a doctor rule him as having an uncontrollable urge to rape. Ordinarily you have to actually be convicted of rape for that to happen, but there's a loophole where they can do it if you have charges dropped due to 5 years of incompetence.
He's currently there, so far as we know, under the orders of a court of limited jurisdiction that can only lock him up for a year. If they wanted to keep him, I think they'd still have to file an actual felony on him. After a year, he'd have spent as much time locked up as the one year max the court can hold him before losing its jurisdiction.
PS probably knows whether there's a distinction between evaluation/treatment and incarceration for the purposes of the court's jurisdiction. If there isn't, then they'd either have to charge him or actually commit him as a danger to himself or others. I'm not sure what procedure they'd have to go through if he is still in the hospital by the time they have to decide.
I think there might actually a loophole where this can happen. The J&DR court could have brought felony charges with the intent to indict, and then they'd be required to have a probable cause hearing since that effectively ends their jurisdiction, and if they didn't do a timely probable cause hearing a judge would then tell the defense no more stalling, you can stall in Circuit Court if you need to, and tell the prosecution to shit or get off the pot and let Chris go.
However they can't do a probable cause hearing while Chris is incompetent, so there would be a brief window where they could bring the charges, but before the next hearing a doctor determined Chris to be incompetent, and at what would've been a probable cause hearing in February instead Chris gets ruled incompetent, putting the whole process on ice, while still leaving Chris charged with a felony.
I don't think this is likely, but I can still see it as a scenario that's technically possible. I can't find an example of this happening in Virginia.
The Fifth Circuit ruled that there's no constitutional protection against being held over a year without indictment, but most states, including Virginia, have some form of protection against that. As far as I can tell Mississippi is the big exception (which is why the Fifth Circuit was involved).
Last edited: