If he agrees to a plea deal there would be no point in convening a grand jury or indicting Chris since he would be pleading guilty and not disputing the evidence or charges against him. You don't need to indict people who admit their crime. He would skip forward straight to sentencing.
That they're moving to indict him is pretty solid proof Chris is still refusing any deals. What an idiot.
Yup. The suggestion I made was pretty

.
On the other hand, it's still possible, and the prosecutor just wants an indictment for the purposes of showing that they didn't just railroad a troon through the system.
I looked at hundreds of cases in Greene County for examples and I couldn't find a felony case where it didn't go through indictment (either direct indictment, or after prelim in district court).
Misdemeanor and infraction appeals of course did not have indictments. I had a lot of fun reading through those. I found one guy who appealed to circuit court for a $25 fine for not wearing a seat belt. (Though at least he didn't demand a jury -- which apparently is an inviolable right in Virginia, even for traffic tickets. Apparently Texas has that right too.)
The tard home, presumably.
I'd also recommend him to any weens who get caught breaking and entering at 14BLC. Assuming he'd take their case.
Can't take a simultaneous case related to another case, as it could lead to a conflict of interest between your clients. It would be okay once he is no longer representing Chris.
It's $30 a day. They don't reimburse your travel expenses in Virginia. And most cases are boring as hell. And that assumes you get selected for a jury instead of sitting on your ass all day in the pool. As far as public juries are concerned, getting drafted is far more lucrative and (at times) much more interesting.
Doing jury duty is still a good idea, as it lets people see the system from a safe vantage instead of having to see it for the first time from the defense's table. It's free legal education, something most citizens lack (witness the bullshit that gets posted here, and especially on the CWC subreddit).
Assuming weenery doesn't convince the judge to close the court. I'm not hopeful.
Apparently it's pretty hard to close actual trials in Virginia. If it gets that far, it should be open.
In any earlier hearing when they're discussing stuff like whether some report about Barb's dusty vagina is admissible, that will be closed. Any hearing that doesn't involve admissibility of sexual/health evidence should be open. (the reason being that until you know if something is admissible, then it does not serve the public interest for others to see it, and privacy is then more important).
I’m sure it can be, I remember when I was chosen as a potential jury member for a rape case with photographic evidence, thankfully I wasn’t picked but similarly with this case if photographic evidence was taken of Barb I’m not sure how many people with no prior knowledge of Chris would want to look at graphic nudes of an elderly women who’s just been potentially raped by her son alongside the rest of the baggage a sexual case of this nature would contain if they can avoid it.
They usually minimize that stuff to only the important parts. It's in the defense's best interests to get anything graphic that does not actually constitute evidence to be thrown out. This often means lots of cropping.
So in this case there would be no full-body Barb nudes. At worst there'd be an extreme closeup of vaginal scarring or something.
For murder cases you sometimes see a lot of wide shots if the positioning of the body is important.
Chris deserves to represent himself.
The farms deserves video of this happening.
As for skipping Jury duty, I had a family member who got laid off because where he worked closed, he was tied into a very long fucked up jury duty thing. Then he was applying for jobs ... btw so I'm leaving for court every tuesday...... yeah hampered him a bit.
In a situation like that you can claim hardship as a reason to get out of it, and most places give you one free pass for any reason.