Chrystul Kizer jailed for 11 years for killing her abuser
Chrystul Kizer jailed for 11 years for killing her abuser
Chrystul Kizer agrees a plea deal to avoid life term for shooting dead Randall Volar, whom she said was her sex-trafficker.
A Milwaukee woman has been jailed for 11 years for killing the man that prosecutors said had sex trafficked her as a teenager.
The sentence, issued on Monday, ends a six-year legal battle for Chrystul Kizer, now 24, who had argued she should be immune from prosecution.
Kizer was charged with reckless homicide for shooting Randall Volar, 34, in 2018 when she was 17. She accepted a plea deal earlier this year to avoid a life sentence.
Volar had been filming his sexual abuse of Kizer for more than a year before he was killed.
Kizer said she met Volar when she was 16, and that the man sexually assaulted her while giving her cash and gifts. She said he also made money by selling her to other men for sex.
You're viewing a single thread.
Alright kids.
There's this wonderful thing called "Jury Nullification"
That means if 1 juror refuses to convict then there is no conviction.
It is your privilege, right, and I daresay even duty to use this helpful tool when you deem it necessary. If you're called for Jury Duty on a case. Let's say non violent drug case. I don't believe nonviolent drug offenses should be against the law at all except in the case of something really bad like Fentanyl. So if I was called I would refuse to convict if the defendant was there for let's say Mary Jane.
But don't ever say those words. Don't allude to it. Don't discuss it with your fellow jurors. Don't Google it after you've been called. It's your secret. But it's a secret everyone should know if you get my meaning.
Now go forth and make the world a better place.
She took a plea deal. No jury.
One juror refusing to convict is a hung jury and a mistrial, which prosecutors will then retry.
Jury nullification would require a unanimous vote to acquit.
I just posted this somewhere else but it belongs here...
It's a jury's job to find a defendant guilty or not guilty of a given charge.
When a jury starts considering whether they feel a charge is fair, they're pretty much just making up the law. At that point you don't need a court and a jury you could just have a bunch of people deciding the defendants fate based on the vibe.
When you say they "don't want jurors to know", they simply want jurors who understand their role in finding a defendant guilty or not guilty. Thinking that nullification is a possible outcome is tantamount to a refusal to fulfil the role of a juror.
Whether a jury feels a charge is fair is the whole reason trial by a jury of peers exists.
It's a feature of the system, not a bug.
This is patently false.
It might feel like a nice idea to have a jury sitting around thinking about what the fairest outcome might be but that is simply not their role.
A jury's sole job is to determine whether a defendant is guilty of the charges against them.
If it was a jury's job to decide on fairness she would've gone to trial rather than taking the deal.
I don't think her decision to take the deal took into account whether jury nullification exists or not. The way you explained it sounds like retrocausality, though I don't know if that's the way you meant it.
Jury nullification isn't about fair outcomes, I should clarify, but about whether the law itself is lawful, representative of the people, or applied lawfully. Maybe that fits into the definition of fair I had in mind, but I was thinking on it more objectively, not subjectively.
There are proponents and opponents within the United States, true, but if a legal system does not permit punishment of jurors, then jury nullification is a logical byproduct of the system. And an important one I would argue. It fits into why trials by jury are important in a democratic legal system - the people have the final say, whether they realize it or not.
Jury nullification doesn't exist as an intended option to be afforded Jurors.
Judges instruct jurors to find defendants guilty or not guilty, there is no third "nullification" option.
Jury Nullification is the name given to this type of frustrated process. A jury unanimously declaring a defendant not-guilty of charges they know them to be guilty of is a perversion of their function.
In a democratic legal system, the people elect governments to make the laws, police enforce the laws and judges apply those laws. There is no "juries ultimately decide based on the vibe" part of democracy.
I get what you're saying, and yet it exists and a term exists for it.
I know there's no "nullification" verdict and the binary guilty/not guilty are the only recognized options, but nullification is used to describe the not guilty verdict despite any charges and evidence in a trial, which I'm sure you understand.
The whole reason? Certainly not. The jury instructions themselves prove otherwise.
Part of the reason? Possible.
Tell that to those abolitionists who were not convicted of harboring fugitive slaves because of jury nullification.
Sometimes laws aren’t just. And as citizens we have a right to stand up to unjust laws.
as citizens we have a right to stand up to unjust laws.
Correct, but that is not the function of a jury.
Why do we have a jury to decide if a defendant is guilty or not guilty when a judge is trained to do the same thing? Why do we allow a jury at all? I think there's more to the function of the jury than just guilty/not guilty or else they would be replaced with a different system.
I'm getting weary of repeating myself.
It is very clearly not the role of a judge to decide whether a defendant is guilty or not guilty. They are not "trained" to do that. That is the role of the jury. Hence the phrase "you have been found guilty by a jury of your peers".
You have a jury to balance the power of the judge, such that a judge can not simply dole out "justice".
Defendants can elect to have a jury trial. If they don't have a jury trial, who finds them guilty or not guilty? Is it the judge? If it's the judge, why do we allow jury trials to occur when every trial could be determined by a justice of the peace?
What is "training" if not education in the laws and legal system? Are judges not educated in law school before becoming lawyers and then justices? Is this irl experience not also considered training?
Honestly I'm not really sure what you're talking about.
The role of a judge and the role of a jury is a fundamental characteristic of a court. You seem to be mixing them up?
Lol can you tell me what a "bench trial" is?
In United States law, for most criminal cases that proceed to trial, trial by jury is usually a matter of course as it is a constitutional right under the Sixth Amendment and cannot be waived without certain requirements.
A bench trial is a trial by judge, as opposed to a trial by jury.
With bench trials, the judge plays the role of the jury as finder of fact in addition to making conclusions of law.
, if a defendant is entitled to a jury trial, the trial must be by jury unless the defendant waives a jury trial in writing. In the various state court systems, waiver of jury trial can vary by jurisdiction.
They can just waive it in writing. So tldr, you're wrong about the role of a judge AND about why we have juries and their role in the judicial system. Which is to be a check toward aristocracy and unfair laws. The jury literally exists specifically to decide guilty, not guilty, or null. That's why it's an option.
"What you say disagrees with my world view, so I'm just going to pretend you're crazy and your words don't make sense."
I've had this exact tactic used against me - it's very transparent when used and weakens your position.
Honestly I’m not really sure what you’re talking about.
That's a pretty polite way to encourage someone to clarify their position IMO.
If you interpret that as an accusation of being crazy and not making sense, I think that says more about you than it does about me.
That is exactly a function of a jury.
The function of a jury is to find the defendant guilty or not guilty of the charges against them. There is no "we feel sad for the defendant" option.