Chrystul Kizer jailed for 11 years for killing her abuser
bbc.com
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 are viewing a single comment
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.
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?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bench_trial
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.
The ability to waive your right to a jury trial does not change the role of a jury.
Jury's do not exist to interpret the law according to the vibe of a given case. If they did, obviously Chrystul would've gone to trial instead of taking the deal.
If a jury concludes that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt then they return a guilty verdict, there is no "unless they're not feeling it" part of the deliberation process.
If a law is unjust, that's a matter for a democratically elected government to resolve, not 12 randomly selected members of the public.
Okay so you now admit that judges can determine a guilty or not guilty sentence? And that judges have special training helping them to understand the law exactly, whereas jurors typically do not have this training?
Yes, it does, because it implies a jury is meant to function outside of the established law by definition and instead focus on law as the people use and understand it. This is justice. That's why we can legally protest and get laws changed.
Chrystal should have indeed gone to trial, that's why so many people are upset she didn't, because we all think she would probably have gotten off. But it's not a guarantee so she took the deal. That's literally why people are talking about jury trials here lol, and her legal counsel.
Like this is such a stupid position. Chrystal, a girl who was sex trafficked most of her teens and is still young, wouldn't know whether it's better to go to trial or not. And her knowledge of if she should go to trial or not doesn't dictate the role of juries lmfao. She doesn't determine that.
Again we go back to why juries exist. They have jury nullification available literally specifically so juries can indeed nullify the law. That is part of the function of a jury. Just because that upsets you, doesn't mean that's not what they are for. Since you didn't even know that a bench trial existed, you're not exactly a legal expert on this.
A jury is a democratically elected government. They are voted in by both the prosecution and defense. And the people in the Supreme Court decide our laws and are a much smaller and more corrupt group. Congress and the senate also make laws and proportionate to the country's population, are also a very tiny group making laws for everyone.
I think you just don't understand juries and this upsets you.
"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.
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.