GUILTY WI - Bart, 50, and Krista Halderson, 53, found deceased, Windsor, 1 Jul 2021 *son arrested*

[CHEL]

I am waiting for the Todt trial. That one will be interesting.

 

[angelainwi]

I am waiting for the Todt trial. That one will be interesting.

When does that one start? I am going follow the federal trial of the 3 former police officers involved in George Floyd's death that should have opening statements on Monday

 

[MTW2011]

Yeah, I wanted to tell him the STHU. I didn't like that argument at all and I'm afraid it will be a good point for his appeal. Hopefully the appellate court will just say there was so much overwhelming evidence that it wouldn't matter

yeah, I thought some of his remarks during closing got into really tricky territory. I went back and listened again and he said, “
What Ms Vera is asking you to do is to lie. His lawyers stood up here and told you to lie. Not to do what you swore to do, which is to render a just and true verdict based on the evidence”….then the defense objected.

Those words seem pretty ‘bad’ in the sense that they are not vague, he invokes the defense counsel by name and says that they’re being told to lie all while also explaining the importance and significance of this legal paper form that they’ll be filling out/signing to. That type of characterization, even just on a fairly brief case search, comes up as one of the many things that are ‘out of bounds’ during closings by either side. I’ve seen this type of scenario referred to as “Attorney’s misstatement of the law or suggestion that jury disregard the law” or in other similar terms, and when I went back to listen to exactly what the prosecutor said, his words seem to cross that line into misstatements of the law/jury instructions/etc.

I’m not saying that if he appeals he will get anywhere, but I do think getting into the type of rhetoric he got into really opened up a door for the defense later on and for such an experienced prosecution team to essentially hand deliver the defense something they can appeal upon - how the State mischaracterized the law, the jury instructions, and told the jury that the defense was essentially telling them to lie on an official legally binding document…..sigh. Would be unfortunate to have family, friends, and coworkers endure another trial - if it ever came to that - because the State went a bit too far in what they said in their closing statements.

 

[fred&edna]

yeah, I thought some of his remarks during closing got into really tricky territory. I went back and listened again and he said, “
What Ms Vera is asking you to do is to lie. His lawyers stood up here and told you to lie. Not to do what you swore to do, which is to render a just and true verdict based on the evidence”….then the defense objected.

Those words seem pretty ‘bad’ in the sense that they are not vague, he invokes the defense counsel by name and says that they’re being told to lie all while also explaining the importance and significance of this legal paper form that they’ll be filling out/signing to. That type of characterization, even just on a fairly brief case search, comes up as one of the many things that are ‘out of bounds’ during closings by either side. I’ve seen this type of scenario referred to as “Attorney’s misstatement of the law or suggestion that jury disregard the law” or in other similar terms, and when I went back to listen to exactly what the prosecutor said, his words seem to cross that line into misstatements of the law/jury instructions/etc.

I’m not saying that if he appeals he will get anywhere, but I do think getting into the type of rhetoric he got into really opened up a door for the defense later on and for such an experienced prosecution team to essentially hand deliver the defense something they can appeal upon - how the State mischaracterized the law, the jury instructions, and told the jury that the defense was essentially telling them to lie on an official legally binding document…..sigh. Would be unfortunate to have family, friends, and coworkers endure another trial - if it ever came to that - because the State went a bit too far in what they said in their closing statements.

I thought his words were very shameful and disrespectful. I don't even understand why he stooped so low. JMO

 

[CHEL]

When does that one start? I am going follow the federal trial of the 3 former police officers involved in George Floyd's death that should have opening statements on Monday

It got pushed back to 4/4 I just saw so I will need to find a new trial until then!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Quite the interesting moment with the State telling the jury that "you're being asked to lie" on the verdict forms, if they choose "not guilty" for anything.

It was a flawless* case by the prosecutors till that point, what a needless own goal.

*Though, Brown annoyingly interjecting "sure" after each witness response was not not aesthetically flawless.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The Defense is really trying to stress (as they should be) the pieces that the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Some of those pieces so far -
The evidence doesn't show that his parents knew about this SpaceX job, and this isn't one of the lies that "matters" with regards to the charges. She is also focusing on how Chandler does lie, he has lied, many many times....but that lying itself is not the crime here, except for how it relates to two of the charges. She is trying to separate the concept of someone who lies so much from someone who commits murders.

They are also mentioning the possibility that his parents knew of his lies, that they didn't really believe the crazy stories for months, but they just kept going with it until one day when they were finally going to confront him. That they were going to still try to set him on the right path, and to support him. Defense is trying to explain how the State makes his parents finding out his lies as the motives for these crimes but that they did not present any evidence of what his parents were going to do with his lies. The State did not show anything saying his parents were going to kick him out, that they were going to cut him off financially, etc. Beyond the story of him being "grounded", the State did not present evidence to show that his parents finding out about his lies was when Chandler's world came crashing down - so the Defense says at least.

Which was all unnecessary for the state to prove as she admitted, but I still think it was proven BARD that the killing was because his lies were being exposed. She, Vera, even started her statement by lending support to that position, by conceding that Chandler is a liar, and that he goes to extreme lengths to cover up his lies. Yes! And murdering his parents would be exactly that, another extreme measure to cover up his lies. He may have been considering it ever since getting the rifle, and then did a rush decision to do it when Bart talked to the school.

Her closing was cringe all the way, very dumb arguments and gaslighting. "Smart enough to clean up blood but not a casing?" is the worst desperate kind of argument. And he did a terrible job at cleaning up, like leaving 200 bone fragments in the ashes, he was no Dexter Morgan.

But I can't blame her really, she had nothing to work with, she had to get up there and say something to fill the time, just doing her job. I wonder whether going to trial was all Chandler's wish and whether they tried to talk him out of it, he may have wanted to go just to get out of jail for a few weeks, or for the chance to see his family and Cat in person for the last time. It looked to me like he and his attorneys had a strained or barely any relationship, he never would speak to them at the table, as you often see with defendants. I'm sure this was not a great experience for those attorneys.

 

[Knox]

I only listened to bits and pieces of this trial. But what I did hear sort of alarmed me, in that his defense team seemed pretty weak. Anyone feel an ineffective counsel appeal might be a possibility?

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

I only listened to bits and pieces of this trial. But what I did hear sort of alarmed me, in that his defense team seemed pretty weak. Anyone feel an ineffective counsel appeal might be a possibility?

Nah, too much evidence against him. It's practically like they had video of him doing it.

Ubiquitous home security cameras are making it hard for a domestic killer to get away with anything, that on top of the now ancient cell phone data.

 

[Tortoise]

I only listened to bits and pieces of this trial. But what I did hear sort of alarmed me, in that his defense team seemed pretty weak. Anyone feel an ineffective counsel appeal might be a possibility?

No, I don't think so. The evidence was overwhelming and it all tied back to him.

 

[Boxer]

Which was all unnecessary for the state to prove as she admitted, but I still think it was proven BARD that the killing was because his lies were being exposed. She, Vera, even started her statement by lending support to that position, by conceding that Chandler is a liar, and that he goes to extreme lengths to cover up his lies. Yes! And murdering his parents would be exactly that, another extreme measure to cover up his lies. He may have been considering it ever since getting the rifle, and then did a rush decision to do it when Bart talked to the school.

Her closing was cringe all the way, very dumb arguments and gaslighting. "Smart enough to clean up blood but not a casing?" is the worst desperate kind of argument. And he did a terrible job at cleaning up, like leaving 200 bone fragments in the ashes, he was no Dexter Morgan.

But I can't blame her really, she had nothing to work with, she had to get up there and say something to fill the time, just doing her job. I wonder whether going to trial was all Chandler's wish and whether they tried to talk him out of it, he may have wanted to go just to get out of jail for a few weeks, or for the chance to see his family and Cat in person for the last time. It looked to me like he and his attorneys had a strained or barely any relationship, he never would speak to them at the table, as you often see with defendants. I'm sure this was not a great experience for those attorneys.

Totally agree.
I think they advised a guilty plea and said no.
MOO he wanted to "get" his brother, to get his brother to cry, to say YOU did this not me by being such a "golden boy."

 

[Wild Rose]

He has probably lied his entire life and always got away with it. Why would he think he wouldn't get away with it again? Probably just sinking in now that he finally got caught. Probably thought that even with an arrest and evidence, he was too smart to not get out of it. Must have so many victims of his lies prior to what we know IMO.

 

[Warwick7]

I only listened to bits and pieces of this trial. But what I did hear sort of alarmed me, in that his defense team seemed pretty weak. Anyone feel an ineffective counsel appeal might be a possibility?

I'm going to guess no. The evidence was shockingly overwhelming.

 

[Knox]

I'm going to guess no. The evidence was shockingly overwhelming.

Yes it was, no doubt about that. But it doesn't necessarily stop that type of appeal from being filed.

Chandler was a piece of work- while she was testifying, I found myself wondering what CM ever saw in him? Her Mom's testimony seemed to indicate she didn't care for him. I wonder if she saw through his lies (college & employment) all along?

 

[Boxer]

I only listened to bits and pieces of this trial. But what I did hear sort of alarmed me, in that his defense team seemed pretty weak. Anyone feel an ineffective counsel appeal might be a possibility?

MOO
I thought the attorneys were passive too, but then i realized, they probably advised a guilty plea due to the evidence. And every question they might pose gave further air time to imsisputable evidence.

 

[Knox]

MOO
I thought the attorneys were passive too, but then i realized, they probably advised a guilty plea due to the evidence. And every question they might pose gave further air time to imsisputable evidence.

Good point, thank you.

 

[Sheila Terranova]

Was he using substances?

 

[GreenEyes727]

When is sentencing? I guess it's a given that he will get 2 consecutive life sentences without parole, at the very least. I do not think CH will give a statement, especially since he already stated that he's not sorry for what he did. What do you think?

 

[Tortoise]

When is sentencing? I guess it's a given that he will get 2 consecutive life sentences without parole, at the very least. I do not think CH will give a statement, especially since he already stated that he's not sorry for what he did. What do you think?

I've got 17th or 18th March written down. No doubt it will be confirmed before then.

 

[Gardenista]

Chandler Halderson doesn't want to appear for his own sentencing next week

Chandler Halderson, who has been found guilty of killing and dismembering his parents, is requesting to be absent from his own sentencing scheduled for next week, according to court documents.

Defense Attorney Catherine Dorl filed a motion Friday that asks the court to waive Halderson’s appearance at the Thursday sentencing. It’s a request that is rarely — if ever — made, particularly in a high-profile homicide case.