Chris - The Legal Issues - A Prosecutor's Perspective

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1) VA is a single party consent state, so as long as the OTHER party agreed to record the conversation, that doesn't run afoul of anything
That, I was unaware of. And while I definitely think Chris will throw a tantrum over the fact that his words were shared without his consent (and that his tantrum will mean diddly shit if the other party consented to the recording), what I'm driving at is that I believe it's reasonable to assume Chris will deny that anything he described or admitted to in any of those messages is actually true. (That he will do this because the messages were shared without his consent is, admittedly, psych/philosophical speculation on my part, but I include it for context and to explain my reasoning and I do think there's behavioral precedent for it.) My question is then, in the event that he says "Yes, I sent all those messages/that's me on that phone call, but nothing I said or wrote is actually true and should not be taken as true," how does that play out in court/negotiations? (i.e- would it still be admissible as evidence, is there some grounds for the defense to go "these statements do not constitute an admission of guilt/are not legally binding/my client was not being honest at the time of their recording", etc.etc.) Although I think Mr. Hamilton pretty succinctly concludes that it'd just result in yet another round of America's Favorite Game and I'm inclined to trust his judgment on this one.
 
If he tries to abduct Chris in the courtroom/break Chris out of jail, there might be a slight possibility of this
Someone posted on the sheriff's press release about Ethan being a violent felon who has assaulted a police officer in the past and how he wants to insert himself into Chris' proceedings. I will be shocked if an ayylawg hasn't called them about Gunt as well. I'm really interested to see how the sheriff and the court deal with this case. It's gotten international attention. Lord knows how many people have been calling them about it. How much of a circus will the court proceedings be? How will a regional jail in rural Virginia handles it all and how many people will show up for the shitshow?
 
It's pretty common for criminal defendants who literally admitted to everything trying to revoke that. It's also pretty common for juries to go lol at that.

Yeah I really can't emphasize enough how much a defendant choosing to testify at trial, particularly one as lulzy and contradictory as Chris, is like Christmas morning for a prosecutor and the worst nightmare for a defense attorney.

I was seeing a scenario like you sketched out - conviction for rape/incest and lengthy probation waiting for him to fail and be recalled to serve the full term. I reckon chimping out and being an ass on the internet (blaming the trolls etc) would be his most probable point of failure. The chances of him learning and becoming a productive person are not high IMHO.

Surely probation if given to those who can reasonably benefit from it? With a useless spazz like CWC it would be more logical to lock him up, but heh courts and joined up thinking...

So, someone already discussed the issue of mandatory probation. But there's a lot of other things that go into that calculus. Maybe I'm trying to get the victim some restitution. Maybe I'm willing to try probation first because I have an incentive to avoid trial. Maybe I'm trying to save my taxpayers some money. Maybe I have more confidence in the probation officers than the institutional setting (This was the case in my first jurisdiction where DOC had crazy time math that meant defendants generally served only about a fourth of their sentence).

A common thing to do with defendants you suspect will fail probation but are unlikely to get a sentence you believe is fitting at trial for whatever reason is to get them to agree to a very big suspended sentence. I've suspended thirty years over a guy before. This only works in jurisdictions where you can do this and where revocation is a real possibility - which according to at least one poster here who has worked with Virginia probationers is not Virginia.
 
Someone posted on the sheriff's press release about Ethan being a violent felon who has assaulted a police officer in the past and how he wants to insert himself into Chris' proceedings. I will be shocked if an ayylawg hasn't called them about Gunt as well. I'm really interested to see how the sheriff and the court deal with this case. It's gotten international attention. Lord knows how many people have been calling them about it. How much of a circus will the court proceedings be? How will a regional jail in rural Virginia handles it all and how many people will show up for the shitshow?
Oh, we're definitely going to get a media circus of some sort when Chris stands trial.

Hopefully we can actually hear the proceedings without having any Foghorn Leghorns present.
 
Has that been actually confirmed anywhere? Whoever processed his arrest likely put F because that's on his license. The sheriff's press release referred to him as a 'he'. David Muscato was initially input as a female in his arrest report until it he was examined by an officer. I didn't see an inmate lookup for CVRJ when I looked and VINElink is how we know about the transfer. I don't believe there is any evidence that Chris is being held with women beyond the F on the arrest report, but there are a lot of threads going on.

He's listed as Female on his custody card, so I can't see any reason he wouldn't be put with the women.

what I'm driving at is that I believe it's reasonable to assume Chris will deny that anything he described or admitted to in any of those messages is actually true. (That he will do this because the messages were shared without his consent is, admittedly, psych/philosophical speculation on my part, but I include it for context and to explain my reasoning and I do think there's behavioral precedent for it.)

I can't see that mattering. I know people are saying "this will end in a plea." But Chris seems like the sort not to listen to the advice of his lawyers so trial it is! And it won't matter that he doesn't agree with the texts. I mean most people accused of a crime don't agree with the evidence against them. He'll have the opportunity to take the stand which will be a disaster, but it's his right.
 
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).
Yeah, but the it seems like the state does not want to charge the 80 yo dementia patient with incest because it seems like they don’t think it was consensual for Barbie Chan.
 
Yeah, but the it seems like the state does not want to charge the 80 yo dementia patient with incest because it seems like they don’t think it was consensual for Barbie Chan.
Alex can chime in and tell me I'm a dumb nigger, but I don't think the state would see any point in charging a decrepit octogenarian with incest for having sex with her autistic troon son even if she is found competent. Who would want to do that? Who would want to do that in a case that is gaining international attention? I don't see any benefit for the state, but I'm no law reader.
 
Yeah, but the it seems like the state does not want to charge the 80 yo dementia patient with incest because it seems like they don’t think it was consensual for Barbie Chan.

This. Prosecutorial discretion is near infinite. I don't have to charge anyone for anything and my reason could be as simple as "I don't feel like it." although at that point I would be a shitty prosecutor and hopefully fired.

In general, when it comes to crimes with two participants and no outside victim, I always try not to charge both and push to figure out who is most responsible/the instigator.

Obviously this only applies if this is truly consensual, but I highly highly doubt that. Hypothetically, though...

This comes up a lot in domestic violence cases where the cops arrest both parties, or so called 'mutual combat' cases. Generally I file on one party, or no parties (if it's mutual combat between two brothers and nobody got seriously hurt but someone called the cops, for example, I probably won't charge them.)

In a truly consensual incest case with average adults I would choose to charge the parent almost every time because they're older and the authority figure even though both are grown - we don't just magically break the hold and influence our parents have on us by turning 18. Often it takes years of therapy.

In this case, with someone who is Barb's advanced age, infirmity, and so on - even if it was truly consensual and she actually consented - I'm definitely not charging her and turning her into a sex offender. She's not gonna be able to complete probation requirements either. Nothing about charging her would feel like justice.

I'm definitely charging the shithead adult child who should have been looking after his mother in her twilight years or at least reaching out for help with her - not playing dress up and sticking his dick in her.
 
I know people are saying "this will end in a plea." But Chris seems like the sort not to listen to the advice of his lawyers so trial it is! [...] He'll have the opportunity to take the stand which will be a disaster, but it's his right.
I strongly agree. Taking any kind of plea offered would be the smart, reasonable, sensible thing to do, and that is exactly why he won't do it. He is too pig-headed, too stubborn, too egotistical and hamstrung by his own warped definition of what is and is not "true" to take outside advice, especially if he isn't being handled with the absolute lightest of touches and someone hurts his precious feeeeeeelings in the process of presenting him with this information. And this sucks, because:
I really can't emphasize enough how much a defendant choosing to testify at trial, particularly one as lulzy and contradictory as Chris, is like Christmas morning for a prosecutor and the worst nightmare for a defense attorney.
I feel badly for whoever it is that gets saddled with defending Chris, I really do. I want to believe that he'll be presented with a plea and take it and then fuck up the conditions of his suspended sentence and go right to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. I want to believe this, if for no other reason than because I want the person who will otherwise have to deal with this shit to be spared. I Want To Believe.

But no matter how much I want it, given Chris's understanding of the law and how courts and trials work, plus the fact that he genuinely seems to believe he's a goddess and the Merge is on and all this other horseshit...I mean, do any of us honestly expect Chris to not see this as some kind of final battle in which he will conquer his enemies, emerge triumphant and which will usher in the completion of the Merge/glorious age of CWCville that he's prophesied? He's always seen himself as the persecuted hero of his own epic tale, and these kinds of stories he's drawing parallels to follow very specific tropes/patterns that Chris a) will assume apply to real life just the same as they do to myth/fantasy, and b) is not intellectually equipped to contemplate deviating from; he will see only one possible outcome, in which the hero succeeds and "justice" is dealt to the undeserving. I could be wrong (in fact, I hope I am) but I feel like he's going to insist on a trial.

[edit for clarity]
 
Last edited:
I strongly agree. Taking any kind of plea offered would be the smart, reasonable, sensible thing to do, and that is exactly why he won't do it. He is too pig-headed, too stubborn, too egotistical and hamstrung by his own warped definition of what is and is not "true" to take outside advice, especially if he isn't being handled with the absolute lightest of touches and someone hurts his precious feeeeeeelings in the process of presenting him with this information. And this sucks, because:

I feel badly for whoever it is that gets saddled with defending Chris, I really do. I want to believe that he'll be presented with a plea and take it and then fuck up the conditions of his suspended sentence and go right to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200. I want to believe this, if for no other reason than because I want the person who will otherwise have to deal with this shit to be spared. I Want To Believe.

But no matter how much I want it, given Chris's understanding of the law and how courts and trials work, plus the fact that he genuinely seems to believe he's a goddess and the Merge is on and all this other horseshit...I mean, do any of us honestly expect Chris to not see this as some kind of final battle in which he will conquer his enemies, emerge triumphant and which will usher in the completion of the Merge/glorious age of CWCville that he's prophesied? He's always seen himself as the persecuted hero of his own epic tale. I could be wrong (in fact, I hope I am) but I feel like he's going to insist on a trial.
Most people consider themselves are the protagonist of their own story. Chris just never has that opinion tempered by thinking about others viewpoints.
 
@Alexander Hamilton
So I know this is only tangentially related but what would be the legal situation for ILJ? I mean she's posted loli/shota online, withheld evidence of the rape of a disabled elderly person, and either tried to doxx two of her friends or she has at least two fake I.Ds. she lives in texas right now which I imagine isnt lenient towards child pornography or obstruction of justice in a rape case.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure I understand your point. Chris doesn't have to authenticate these things 1) VA is a single party consent state, so as long as the OTHER party agreed to record the conversation, that doesn't run afoul of anything and 2) Chris doesn't have to authenticate his text messages the people who received them can attempt to (I say attempt because every jurisdiction has their own rules for texts and I don't know VA. )

Whether it’s admissable or not doesn’t really matter.

What matters is that it’s pretty close to worthless without other, especially physical evidence.

Yes Stalins favorite judge Vyshinsky used to say that “confession is the queen of evidence”. But this is Chris.

Now if you’re a prosecutor who has little or zero physical evidence.

But have hundreds of pages where the accused talks about other dimensions, being a goddess and a fictional character having sex with his mother, are you going to try to explain to the jury that everything else the accused said is just flights of imagination, but these chatlogs are the clear and unvarnished truth?

Like fuck you are.

You’re going to pour yourself a double scotch and try to come up with a plea deal.


(Sure, we know Chris and can tell when he’s full of crap and when he isn’t. But the prosecutor has to deal with a jury full of boomers who will probably (If Chris’s public defender is worth a damn) get pumped with sob stories and “reasonable doubt”)


I'm not sure I understand your point. Chris doesn't have to authenticate these things 1) VA is a single party consent state, so as long as the OTHER party agreed to record the conversation, that doesn't run afoul of anything and 2) Chris doesn't have to authenticate his text messages the people who received them can attempt to (I say attempt because every jurisdiction has their own rules for texts and I don't know VA. )

Whether it’s admissable or not doesn’t really matter.

What matters is that it’s pretty close to worthless without other, especially physical evidence.

Yes Stalins favorite judge Vyshinsky used to say that “confession is the queen of evidence”. But this is Chris.

Now if you’re a prosecutor who has little or zero physical evidence.

But have hundreds of pages where the accused talks about other dimensions, being a goddess and a fictional character having sex with his mother, are you going to try to explain to the jury that everything else the accused said is just flights of imagination, but these chatlogs are the clear and unvarnished truth?

Like fuck you are.

You’re going to pour yourself a double scotch and try to come up with a plea deal.


(Sure, we know Chris and can tell when he’s full of crap and when he isn’t. But the prosecutor has to deal with a jury full of boomers who will probably (If Chris’s public defender is worth a damn) get pumped with sob stories and “reasonable doubt”)
He's listed as Female on his custody card, so I can't see any reason he wouldn't be put with the women.



I can't see that mattering. I know people are saying "this will end in a plea." But Chris seems like the sort not to listen to the advice of his lawyers so trial it is! And it won't matter that he doesn't agree with the texts. I mean most people accused of a crime don't agree with the evidence against them. He'll have the opportunity to take the stand which will be a disaster, but it's his right.

If you think that Chris refusing a plea deal and insisting on a trial can only end badly for him, I’d temper your expectations.

Depending on what the evidence is, especially if there isn’t a lot of physical evidence I could see Chris get acquitted.

If you’re a boomer who takes the concept of “reasonable doubt” seriously. Are you going to send a 40 year old developmentally disabled man to prison for an extended period of time, based on a couple of texts and phone calls?

After seeing countless examples of other bizarre Shit Chris writes or says?

Many wouldn’t.
 
Last edited:
This. Prosecutorial discretion is near infinite. I don't have to charge anyone for anything and my reason could be as simple as "I don't feel like it." although at that point I would be a shitty prosecutor and hopefully fired.

In this case, with someone who is Barb's advanced age, infirmity, and so on - even if it was truly consensual and she actually consented - I'm definitely not charging her and turning her into a sex offender. She's not gonna be able to complete probation requirements either. Nothing about charging her would feel like justice.

Consensual incest is more akin to a strict liability crime than anything else. If both parties truly understand and consent to the action, they're guilty of a crime because the statute says they committed a crime, but they didn't commit an unwanted or unwarranted criminal act against each other in the classic sense. The offense to our sense of morality is profound, but there is some interesting interplay at work with how activist, brain-damaged attorneys like to stretch notions of consent in the last 10 years or so.

I have, from the beginning, argued that Barb lacked the capacity to consent, and as a matter of law incest occurred, but this is closely nested with rape. While incest might not occupy a tremendous number of cases, rape tied closely with an elderly or infirmed individual that lacks the ability to consent certainly does.

Barb is mentally and functionally a child. The majority of this entire sordid saga rests on an evaluation of her mental fitness. Her fitness in determining whether charges should be pressed against her son, and her fitness in whether she can consent to the incestual act.

In the former, therein lies a question as to whether the commonwealth should charge Chris with rape even if Barb does not. The latter is purely discretionary: on the one hand, if Barb has capacity, she is guilty of incest, and it's up to the prosecutor to decide whether to charge her. If she lacks capacity, she's "merely" a rape victim.

The tangled webs Chris weaves.
 
Last edited:
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?
Not a legal folk, but Chrises and Barbs exist by the tens of thousands
As a side note, in my past life as a parole officer, no case was as miserable as a Virginia case. Virginia gives huge suspended sentences but never activates them. One of my first interstate cases was a guy on for armed robbery. He was arrested for new crimes and absconding 8 times and returned to VA, serving 3 months at most each time. Understand that under the auspices of the Interstate Compact that governs state to state transfers, there are easily met mandatory criteria that mean a different state can send you the worst case on the planet and you can't reject it, and you will only have the authority over him the sending state gives you. In most states, absconding gets you the whole bid or close to it. A conviction beyond the tiniest misdemeanor or traffic offense tends to as well. He finally got a new charge for robbing a gas station and is locked up in my state still... presumably VA will activate his sentence when he gets out but I wouldn't be surprised if he gets extradited to VA and they slap him on the wrist and reinstate his supervision again.

Speaking to officers from other states at well, their experiences with VA were similarly horrible. Most other states were pretty uniformly easy to deal with- hey, I need this judgment modification. Hey, get your DA to sign this. Hey, we can't fulfill this condition under our laws, what do you want to sub for it? No problems with most places. But not VA. Part of it is probation and parole officers there are powerless- they're not really much like law enforcement like they are in many states. They cannot even issue their own warrants (a "capias", as VA likes to do everything fundamentally similarly but with different names) and they rely on local cops to serve their own warrants. But they're also completely fucking incompetent. I never found a state with officers and supervision that was so poorly managed, and even now it's not even a little rare to arrest or investigate some guy, charge him with something, and then find out his VA probation officer took out a violation on him... six months to a year after he was last seen and only after he got busted for a major crime.

In contrast I have generally had no complaints about the conduct or professionalism of most VA cops and state police (although VSP are serious road nazis and proud of it) and I think their jails and prisons, which I occasionally end up travelling to for work, are better run than most. But their probation and parole officers are damn useless... and it seems to be by design given their lack of authority.

Unless Chris commits a serious new crime on release, which is IMO really unlikely, they will push him through the system.

Changing subjects a tiny bit, the common evaluation used by many states and most Anglosphere countries to determine risk of recidivism for those charged with sex offenses is the Static-99.

Here is the quick and dirty scoring sheet. It isn't very complex although there is a little nuance in the classwork and books you use to do them.

large.png


(Are images blocked on this subforum? You can see the quick and dirty scoresheet here.

Chris would assess out as a "2" (assuming his past charges included an element of violence in the conviction, and diversionary sentencing agreements also count for the purposes of this scoring), which is in the low-moderate range. My coding guide tells me that generally speaking those who assess in his risk range have a rate of recidivism of 3-7% over a five year period.

Curiously, if he turns 40 before conviction, he drops down to a 1- with a 2.5-5% rate of recidivism over a five year period.

Personally, I think those are actually very likely to reoffend, but those are the rates for which they get caught or self-report anyway.

The static99 are important guidelines for determination of conditions at sentencing and often make or break ankle monitor terms. That said I doubt Chris will be on lifetime GPS, he might get one for house arrest or a curfew I guess.
Ever lived with lover for more than 2 years? Do I give Chris a 0 or a -1 for this one?

Wouldn't Chris's age upon committing the crime be used instead of the age he was upon conviction?

Whether it’s admissable or not doesn’t really matter.

What matters is that it’s pretty close to worthless without other, especially physical evidence.

Yes Stalins favorite judge Vyshinsky used to say that “confession is the queen of evidence”. But this is Chris.

Now if you’re a prosecutor who has little or zero physical evidence.

But have hundreds of pages where the accused talks about other dimensions, being a goddess and a fictional character having sex with his mother, are you going to try to explain to the jury that everything else the accused said is just flights of imagination, but these chatlogs are the clear and unvarnished truth?

Like fuck you are.

You’re going to pour yourself a double scotch and try to come up with a plea deal.


(Sure, we know Chris and can tell when he’s full of crap and when he isn’t. But the prosecutor has to deal with a jury full of boomers who will probably (If Chris’s public defender is worth a damn) get pumped with sob stories and “reasonable doubt”)




Whether it’s admissable or not doesn’t really matter.

What matters is that it’s pretty close to worthless without other, especially physical evidence.

Yes Stalins favorite judge Vyshinsky used to say that “confession is the queen of evidence”. But this is Chris.

Now if you’re a prosecutor who has little or zero physical evidence.

But have hundreds of pages where the accused talks about other dimensions, being a goddess and a fictional character having sex with his mother, are you going to try to explain to the jury that everything else the accused said is just flights of imagination, but these chatlogs are the clear and unvarnished truth?

Like fuck you are.

You’re going to pour yourself a double scotch and try to come up with a plea deal.


(Sure, we know Chris and can tell when he’s full of crap and when he isn’t. But the prosecutor has to deal with a jury full of boomers who will probably (If Chris’s public defender is worth a damn) get pumped with sob stories and “reasonable doubt”)


If you think that Chris refusing a plea deal and insisting on a trial can only end badly for him, I’d temper your expectations.

Depending on what the evidence is, especially if there isn’t a lot of physical evidence I could see Chris get acquitted.

If you’re a boomer who takes the concept of “reasonable doubt” seriously. Are you going to send a 40 year old developmentally disabled man to prison for an extended period of time, based on a couple of texts and phone calls?

After seeing countless examples of other bizarre Shit Chris writes or says?

Many wouldn’t.
Can they actually submit Chris's other ramblings in as evidence?

Won't there be some bias against Chris because he looks disgusting? If it's a jury of boomers, they're going to be kind of hard pressed to not jump to conclusions about Chris...
 
Last edited:
Can they actually submit Chris's other ramblings in as evidence?

Won't there be some bias against Chris because he looks disgusting? If it's a jury of boomers, they're going to be kind of hard pressed to not jump to conclusions about Chris...
In a criminal trial (again, if it comes to a trial) the rules of evidence work in the favor of the defendant when it comes to introducing specific instances of past behavior, or bringing in any kind of character or example evidence where a specific character trait is not at issue.

However, and this is why you absolutely do not, under any circumstances want Chris on the stand: The defense can open a door by calling into question character or past acts. And once that door is open, the prosecution can drive a truck through it. There is no possible way a rambling TRUE AND HONEST person like Chris could ever be controlled on the stand or possibly stay on topic or query without blowing shrapnel all over his own evidentiary defenses.

I tend to avoid exposing my clients to the trial process in general at all costs. I do not want their emotions read, I do not want the chance for an outburst, I do not want them on the stand, for any reason. I am an ardent believer in the concept of blowback -- the unforeseen and unintended consequences of a specific action -- and I steer well clear of anything and anyone in court I do not exert strong control over if I can.

If anyone takes away anything from my postings in this thread: remember trials are very rare compared to the volume of cases overall. Most charges end up dropped or with a plea deal accepted. Cases that go to trial are usually because the prosecutor is being cocky/dumb and the defense calls them, or as an absolute last resort.

The longer you occupy yourself in law, the more you come to loathe the kangaroo court that is the jury. It is better to negotiate with a prosecutor than 12...."peers".
 
Last edited:
Can they actually submit Chris's other ramblings in as evidence?

Won't there be some bias against Chris because he looks disgusting? If it's a jury of boomers, they're going to be kind of hard pressed to not jump to conclusions about Chris...
They probably will try to clean him up for the trial . Although again its very likely the trial will go over chris chan in general. An insane tranny retard bullied by thousands puts the image into perspective . Its a huge variable but still
 
Back
Top Bottom