Chrystul Kizer is most certainly a victim of sex trafficking. Chrystul Kizer shot and killed 34-year old Randall Phillip Volar III when she was 17. Randall Phillip Volar III was most certainly a serial child abuser. In Kenosha, Wis.,—the same city that is arguably treating protest shooter Kyle Rittenhouse with kid gloves—Kizer, now 20, is currently facing life in prison for killing her alleged abuser, who, as The Root previously reported, never spent a full night in jail despite being suspected, based on a mountain of evidence, of child pornography, sex trafficking and the abuse of around a dozen young girls...particularly Black girls. (According to prosecutors none of that matters—Kizer shot Volar for his BMW.)
As we have reported, Kizer’s attorneys have been arguing for the allowance to use Wisconsin’s “affirmative defense” law in defending their client in court. The law, which was originally denied by a judge, would allow attorneys to argue that Kizer’s crime was a direct response to the abuse she experienced, and not because a very probable serial abuser of Black girls happened to drive a nice car. Now, an appellate court has ruled that she may be able to use the defense.
From the Washington Post:
The court’s decision, which has been pending for over a year, comes as legislatures and judges across the country are reevaluating how the unique abuse trafficking victims experience should be taken into consideration in the legal system.
The majority of states have laws that offer protection to people who can show that a crime they committed — such as prostitution, drug possession or fraud — happened because they were being trafficked.
But when the crime in question is a violent offense, anti-trafficking advocates and prosecutors are divided over how much leeway these victims should be offered.
The “affirmative defense” law specifically states that sex trafficking victims are entitled to a legal defense “for any offense committed as a direct result” of said sex trafficking. The Post reports that prosecutors argued that homicide isn’t included in “any offense” while Kizer’s lawyers argued that “any defense” means exactly what the words say. Fortunately, the court agreed.
So now, Kizer’s attorneys need to convince a judge that there is “some evidence” her crime was a “direct result” of her falling into the hands of a predator. If her lawyers are successful, she could be acquitted of some or all of the charges against her.