Grand Jury speculation thread

[AnOminous]

A lot of confusion stems from the 70s and 80s where the standard for insanity had more to do with whether or not your mental illness heavily influenced your crime, but after some notorious cases the feds and pretty much every state introduced a higher standard.

Hinckley was pretty much the poster child for doing away with that particular definition of legal insanity. Most states currently use something like the classic M'Naghten rule, also known as the wild beast rule, which is that the person is on the level of a wild animal and literally incapable of morality.

The fact that Chris knew what he was doing was illegal to the point that he lied about it more or less disqualifies him.

Virginia's standards are slightly more loose than that, but not to the point where Chris qualifies in the least. He knew it was illegal to fuck his mom, he lied about it, while in jail he changed his story to fit his legal situation, and despite knowing it was illegal to fuck his mom, he did it anyway and tried, albeit in his retarded way, to cover it up.

I think the prosecutors probably made that a condition for any plea; don't think there is any chance they would allow him to plea and NOT register.

He quite possibly had the option to take such a plea and tarded out and refused it. I doubt that is going to be on the table again.

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

Theres a very high chance Chris is going to get out with all his tugboat drained by Barb anyways

I do not like this euphemism.

 

[BootlegPopeye]

He quite possibly had the option to take such a plea and tarded out and refused it. I doubt that is going to be on the table again.

Maybe but that is still speculation (possible, even probable, though). This case has been going on far past the normal range for a speedy trial - they basically have to resolve (soon) what they are going to do with the case within the next month or so.

I have some relatives who have some experience with how the mental evaluations can affect a legal process (ie they helped evaluate loons). It is my belief that his pysch evaluations slowed down the entire case.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

I was looking around for examples in the US - most people who have committed this crime, it was by a parent on a minor child, so they get slammed by rape charges on top of it. I could only find a few where it was "only" incest between adults, but Barb's diminished capacity (if she meets the definition legally) might come into play.

My prediction - 1-3 years with 2 suspended. Chris has to register as a sex offender for 15 years. But Chris will fail to get his name removed from the registry (you have to petition the court in Virginia for this) because he is Chris.

Agreed. They'll want some suspended to keep him under control (if that's possible). I don't think Chris will sexually assault anyone, but I worry he'll do some other retarded thing that happens to be a violation of his probation. He'll have trouble understanding that things that aren't illegal for other people to do will be illegal for him to do.

 

[Ratboy Genius]

Was browsing the ffa tag on twitter, stumbled upon a furry cartoonist's take on the chris news
https://twitter.com/zoopwolf/status/1553065813782953986?s=12&t=wRbKDeoYZhNnMRW3UB2KCQ

Spoiler

I assume he drew that himself? He is an artist. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Incredible reply, probably has been posted here already but imma include it anyway

 

[Friend of Dorothy Parker]

This is similar to the example of insanity we learned in law school. If you have a mental disease that causes you to actually see and hear aliens, and they tell you to kill a person or they will destroy Earth, you can't plead insanity because you would still understand that you are killing a human being, which is a crime. You understood (or were able to understand) your actions and the effect they would have on the victim would constitute a crime.

If, however, your mental illness caused you to actually see and hear the victim as an alien threatening to destroy Earth, you might be able to plead insanity. Because you actually couldn't comprehend the victim as a human, but rather as an alien (who, under the law you theoretically could kill because murder laws only apply to killing "persons") you didn't understand (and at the time were incapable of understanding, due to your mental illness) that your actions constituted a crime.

And an insanity defense is different than being found unfit to stand trial. That has more to do with your current ability to understand the charges against you and effectively participate in your defense (a low threshold). Chris was evaluated for his competency to stand trial, and apparently was found competent or rehabilitated to competency. He is not legally "insane."

A lot of confusion stems from the 70s and 80s where the standard for insanity had more to do with whether or not your mental illness heavily influenced your crime, but after some notorious cases the feds and pretty much every state introduced a higher standard.

The standard for mental disease as creating some sort of exculpation for a crime varies by state.

In Virginia the test seems a blend of several approaches ( M'Naghten, "irresistible impulse," Fed approach, etc.):

Virginia Insanity Test:*

• As a result of mental disease or defect:
• The defendant did not understand the nature, character, and consequences of his or her act; OR
• Was unable to distringuish right from wrong; OR
• Was unable to resist the impulse to commit the act.
• Contains both cognitive and volitional tests; looks at both the defendant's thinking about the offense and their ability to control behavior.
• Never been defined by statute, the insanity defense in Virginia is entirely based on case law.
• "Mental disease or defect" is defined as a disorder that "substantially impairs the defendant's capacity to understand or appreciate his conduct."
• "Nature, character, and consequences" are not defined. It is not clear whether the defendant must have believed that the act was legally justified or whether the belief that the act was morally justified suffices.
• The degree of impairment in cognitive or volitional capacity necessary for a finding of insanity is a social value judgment for the judge or jury.

Also note (general point for all) the differences in the standard for competence at trial vs as an affirmative defense to a crime (again, Virginia);


- Compentency to Stand Trial

• Competency addresses the defendant's current ability to understand legal proceedings and assist the attorney in their defense.
• Can be raised by anyone, including the defense, the prosecutor, or the judge. The defendant does not have to agree with a request for a competency evaluation or finding.
• Must be competent in order to go to trial and must be competent in order to submit an NGRI plea.
• Can be raised at any point during the trial process. This could be at the very early stages of arraignment, or even at the point of sentencing.
• The bar is very low - to be found competent you do not have to be a legal expert. A defendant must be able to understand the charges against him and assist in his defense.
• The court presumes that a defendant is competent unless the issue is raised and an evaluation finds them incompetent.
• Competency is fluid, and can change from day to day. The issue of competency can be raised more than once during a trial process as the defendant's mental status changes.

- Insanity at the Time of the Offense

• Sanity addresses the defendant's mental state at the time the crime was committted.
• Can only be raised by the defense. The defendant must agree to entering an insanity plea & the defendant voluntarily participates in the evaluation.
• Just because a defendant was incompetent does not mean that they were insane at the time of the offense and vice versa.
• The defense must make a motion of intent to plead NGRI with the court no less than 21 days prior to trial.
• The bar is very high; many conditions must be proved by the defense in order to be successful in presenting this defense to the court.
• The prosecution does not have to prove sanity, instead the defense has to prove insanity. The court presumes that a defendant was legally sane unless the defense can prove otherwise.
• Insanity at the time of the offense is fixed, it relates to a person's mental state at a fixed point in time when the offense occurred and does not change.

*All of the above is from the source below. It contains data through 2015, suggesting it was published within a couple of years of then. Things could have changed in the meantime but given VA's overall approach to using case law as precedent rather than legislation, it's probably largely the same.

https://www.dbhds.virginia.gov/library/forensics/ofo%20-%20section%201%20all%20sections.pdf

In general, nationally per the above, an insanity affirmative defense is raised only about 1 % of the time, successful on average about 23% of the time it's allowed as an affirmative defense.

 

[LinkinParkxNaruto[AMV]]

He's been asking for donations to his Commissary account again, he's just called them Tithes this time

Interesting, Chris is learning fast, maybe he does have a future as a protestant pastor after all

 

[mindlessobserver]

People need to remember suspended sentences and parole are not the same thing. Parole is when you get out of prison sooner then you were sentenced too. A suspended sentence means the State declines to actually punish you for various reasons.

Such reasons could even be a pending dismissal of the charges if you meet certain requirements. This is most common in traffic court where the judge tells you to go back to driving school in exchange for the speeding ticket getting tossed.

You can only get suspended sentences up to the maximum allowed by law, provided there is no set minimum punishment for the crime. Certain sex crimes have required jail time. It's really hard to say at this juncture what Chris will get because we don't know what they are considering charging him with.

 

[Clock]

I worry he'll do some other retarded thing that happens to be a violation of his probation. He'll have trouble understanding that things that aren't illegal for other people to do will be illegal for him to do.

I'm placing my bet that he's going to try to break back into 14BC despite the fact that he definitely will be banned from coming back there. It IS the holy temple of Jesus, after all.

It might even happen immediately after he gets out of prison, which would be fucking hilarious (but also torture for us because he'd be sent right back to the slammer immediately and we'd be cucked of wacky Chris hijinks once again)

 

[TestTubePuppy]

I'm placing my bet that he's going to try to break back into 14BC despite the fact that he definitely will be banned from coming back there. It IS the holy temple of Jesus, after all.

It might even happen immediately after he gets out of prison, which would be fucking hilarious (but also torture for us because he'd be sent right back to the slammer immediately and we'd be cucked of wacky Chris hijinks once again)

Maybe the weens will line the road between jail and 14 BC cheering and waving like OJ in the slow speed bronco chase.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

People need to remember suspended sentences and parole are not the same thing. Parole is when you get out of prison sooner then you were sentenced too. A suspended sentence means the State declines to actually punish you for various reasons.

Such reasons could even be a pending dismissal of the charges if you meet certain requirements. This is most common in traffic court where the judge tells you to go back to driving school in exchange for the speeding ticket getting tossed.

You can only get suspended sentences up to the maximum allowed by law, provided there is no set minimum punishment for the crime. Certain sex crimes have required jail time. It's really hard to say at this juncture what Chris will get because we don't know what they are considering charging him with.

In the jurisiction I'm familiar with, it's pretty much impossible to get a felony expunged after probation, only a misdemeanor. The suspended sentence is the threat that makes you follow the requirements of your probation. Once completed, the suspended sentence is forgiven, but the crime is not.

For cases that take a long time to get to sentencing while you're in jail, time served plus suspended sentence is a really common outcome, if you're not a repeat offender (of that type of crime).

Here, there is a difference between a minimum sentence and a mandatory minimum. A regular minimum can have all or part of that minimum be suspended, whereas a mandatory minimum cannot and that portion must be served in actual incarceration.

 

[Durant]

MAX, how long could he be in for?

 

[Pointless Sperg]

MAX, how long could he be in for?

On the current charge? 10 years, starting on the date he was arrested a year ago.

 

[mindlessobserver]

MAX, how long could he be in for?

If they hit him with Rape? 40 years.

 

[Holiday Special]

I wonder if the prosecution is so grossed out by the details of this case, they want to spread the misery around a bit. If they have to know, then so does everyone.

 

[Pointless Sperg]

If they hit him with Rape? 40 years.

In Virginia the max is life, is it not? I'd argue that Chris living to 80 is unlikely, but both his parents did pretty damn well.

 

[AnOminous]

It's really hard to say at this juncture what Chris will get because we don't know what they are considering charging him with.

At least we'll actually know when it does because the kid gloves come off once this hits Circuit Court, a court of record and of general jurisdiction.

 

[Optimus Prime]

In Virginia the max is life, is it not? I'd argue that Chris living to 80 is unlikely, but both his parents did pretty damn well.

I will admit that one of the things that's amazed me about Chris is how, despite his absolutely awful hygenic standards, he's never seemingly gotten anything worse than a cold.

That said, I agree him hitting 80 is highly unlikely. His shit diet, lack of exercise, and probably more than a little of the constant stress he must be under these days will likely do him in.

 

[mindlessobserver]

In Virginia the max is life, is it not? I'd argue that Chris living to 80 is unlikely, but both his parents did pretty damn well.

Rereading the law, it would be, under subsection ii, which would be "diminished mental capacity". The State would have to prove Barb wasn't a willing participant though. Virginia's rape law is complicated af, and there is so much wiggle room in it, Chris could actually beat it. It does have the 40 years baked into the cake though, and the Judge is allowed to offer that as a suspended sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. Provided the State does not find for any of the subsections. Which in this case, would be that subsection ii for diminished mental capacity as it relates to barb.

if that is present then Chris has to face 25 years minimum. Up to life. If I am reading it correctly anyway.

 

[AnOminous]

Rereading the law, it would be, under subsection ii, which would be "diminished mental capacity". The State would have to prove Barb wasn't a willing participant though.

Or that she was mentally incapable of consent.