OR – State v Walker – Nov 6 2014 Trial

Chris’s trial November 6, 2014. Chris was eventually found not guilty according to Laura, which makes his failure to appear particularly painful, as this is a felony charge.

Seems Chris wanted to subpoena the jurors who were at his original trial, when he failed to show up. Christopher Robert, family of Walker… What a foolish person. The judge explains that the previous jurors are not going to be on the present venire. Judge explains that both sides have the opportunity to inquire if the jurors were present.

He also wants to call them as witnesses. The judge informs Chris once again that he can ask the jurors the question. As to witnesses, the Judge observes that noone has made an effort to issue subpoenas.

The judge remains cool and calm as he reiterates how jury selection is going to happen.

As to the bond and oath, Chris insists that the judge shows these documents, the judge declines.

“I understand your position, Sir” and I disagree with your interpretation.

“You may just sit there and be quiet if you prefer to do so.”

Prosecutor reminds everyone that Christopher Walker has not accepted the discovery from the prosecution.

Chris wants to wear his bracelet that identifies him as a prisoner in the hope that someone realizes that he has been incarcerated illegally.. Really….

It’s jury tampering that the prosecutor wants to tell her side of the story.

How could I be incarcerated when I am still innocent until proven guilty? Well, the statutes allow for that under probable cause determination.

The judge remains calm and professional and the prosecutor makes sure that everyone realizes that any jury tampering will be prosecuted.

“I object to that too”…. Judge “Thank you Sir” ROTFL

Charge: Interception of communications  ORS 165.540

“I object, you pled not guilty for me”. You are committing perjury… Not very smart as the judge was protecting him.

Questions:

1. Does anyone know Mr Walker? Would it be hard for you to remain fair and impartial?

  • Juror 29 dismissed. Juror 87 brought in as replacement
  • Anyone else? Juror 104. Same question. Juror 104 excused.  Juror 21 brought in.
  • No more hands.

2. Does anyone know the prosecutor?

  • No hands

3. Does anyone know the following people

  • Heather Hosey – No hands
  • Judge Charles Littlehales – One hand juror 27. No problem
  • Bruce McGuire – One hand juror 32. Problem? Yes. Dismissed. Seat filled
  • Craig Mitchell – Juror 103. Problem? Yes. Excused. 95 called in

4. I have given you a description of the charge. Is there anything that would create a bias?

  • No hands

Chris Walker – I object to these procedures. I don’t consent to these proceedings. You have failed to provide your oath. I do not consent. You are committing fraud, you just committed perjury. This is an unlawful proceeding. I have no questions to ask because I am unlawfully incarcerated. That’s all I have to say.

Judge: Thank you, I take that as a statement that you have no questions for the jurors. ROTFL

Prosecutor: Is anyone going to have a hard time dealing with Mr Walker given his behavior so far.

Prosecutor: Sympathy and other emotions are to be ignored.

Prosecutor: No prior bias. Was anyone here on October 24th? The prosecutor is making sure that Walker’s question is asked… Appeal proof… Noone was in the court that day.

Various other questions about bias especially towards the police. Some exchanges about work starting late afternoon and other concerns.

Jurors return to jury room.

Walker: I object to this process. Judge: I understand Walker: Blah Blah Blah, no oath, blah, you are railroading me, this is all an unlawful process. Judge: Thank you sir that will be noted for the record.

Judge: Each side may remove three jurors of their choice.

Judge keeps going with his presentation, even when interrupted by Walker, he continues where he left of.

Do you have any challenges you wish to exercise. I object to this. Any challenges? I object to this… I take this as a no.

Once again sir if you have any jurors… I object…

Juror 92 is going to move into the seat. “I object to that”… Poor Chris, most of the proceedings are happening around him. Why do these magic incantations not work?…

Jurors are being seated… The suspense… Oath taken… @10:30 into the 5th video…

Now the jury instructions…

Absolute constitutional right not to testify and can not be used as an indicator of his guilt.

Absolute constitutional right not to present any evidence and can not be used as an indicator of his guilt.

The law will be presented, evidence will be presented, additional instructions will be presented. Apply the facts to the law, to reach the verdict and you must follow the law, whether or not you agree with it. You must also set aside any emotions and personal feelings.

Too bad there is no audio of the actual trial. I can only imagine why…

5 thoughts on “OR – State v Walker – Nov 6 2014 Trial

  1. Chris is upset that the Judge and jurors who were at his previous trial, the one where he failed to appear, laughed at the situation. They accused the judge of jury tampering, even though the jurors were clearly dismissed and none showed up at his subsequent trial. Chris is still objecting though since he wants to know their names. The Judge told him, he can ask the jurors if they were at his previous trial, but he refused to participate. The prosecutor however asked the question, to remove any hope for a successful appeal on the issue. Well done… Enjoy the following.

  2. Not to in any way defend these sovcit folks, but my reading of ORS 165.540 (6) (a) [ http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/165.540 ] implies to me that Chris was within his rights to record in the courtroom. Maybe we need to hear the rest of the trial to find out what the judge thinks the law is and what the jury decided.

  3. See State v. Lissy, 737 P. 2d 617 – Or: Court of Appeals 1987

    for an overview of these statutes

    Under that law, it is reasonably clear that recording any wire or oral communication with the consent of one of the participants did not violate the act. During the same session, ORS 165.540 was amended in some respects, Or. Laws 1979, ch. 744, § 9, but subsection 1(a) remained unchanged. As a result, there was a duplication of that provision: ORS 133.992(2) and ORS 165.540(1)(a). In 1983, ORS 133.992 was amended, Or. Laws 1983, ch. 824, § 2, by deleting subsection 2 quoted above. ORS 165.540(1)(a) was left alone, but Oregon Laws 1983, chapter 824, section 3, containing almost identical language to that deleted from ORS 133.992 and to that which was left intact in ORS 165.540(1)(a) was enacted. Section 3 is codified as ORS 165.543, with a note that the legislature did not specify where it belonged in ORS. From a reading of Oregon Laws 1983, chapter 824, it appears to us that it was intended to be a part of ORS chapter 133.

Comments are closed.