The State versus Chelsea Chafee ~ Guilt by Association & Deer in Headlights Syndrome

by Lise LaSalle

Chelsea Mae Chafee was born on June 9^th, 1986 in Missoula County, Montana. She gave birth to a daughter she named Hayleigh, on July 21, 2005. After going through many life struggles, Chelsea was finally on solid ground and had met a great guy called Matt who became her fiancée more than four years ago. They formed a tight and loving unit and things were looking up for the girl known for her huge heart and sensitivity, but also for displaying some residual behavioral patterns stemming from physical, emotional and sexual abuse.

But Chelsea’s new life began to unravel when in October, 2011 she was arrested, charged with a crime and sent to jail.

Statement of the case

• On October 7, 2011, Chelsea Mae and an acquaintance named Antonio David Robinson were driving in the area of Pattee Creek Canyon near Missoula, Montana. Chelsea was at the wheel when Robinson noticed a vehicle on the side of the road and asked her to stop, as it looked like one of his old vehicles. When she stopped, Robinson broke into the vehicle, removed a tent, a pair of boots and a metal box, lit the car on fire and instructed Chafee to drive away.
• Law enforcement intercepted Chafee and Robinson shortly after the burning vehicle was discovered. They were both arrested and charged with Theft and Arson. Robinson pled guilty and Chafee proceeded to trial.

• Robinson claimed that the crimes were his idea, that they were not pre-planned and that Chelsea had no involvement. This was consistent with what Chelsea reported to law enforcement at the time of her arrest. She had made no effort to intervene or to escape the crime scene.
• Chelsea told police that her intention was to drop off Robinson and get back to her boyfriend so she could report the incident with him.
• The State presented testimony from a former co-worker of Chafee, Jeffrey Russell, who testified that Chelsea had told him she lit the car on fire using lighter fluid and a match because she and Robinson were drunk and ‘needed something to do.’
• During closing arguments, the State argued that between Russell and Robinson, Russell was the witness that took his oath to tell the truth seriously and that he was more candid with the jury.
• The State further argued that once Chafee was present at the scene of the crime, she had an affirmative duty to try to get away and contact law enforcement.
• In his final comments, the prosecuting attorney instructed the jury to look to their hearts, souls and the essence of what they knew was right to arrive at the right verdict.
• At the conclusion of a two day trial, the jury found Chafee guilty of Accountability for Theft and Accountability for Arson.

Accountability for Theft and Arson

Under federal law, arson is damaging or destroying by fire or explosive any building, vehicle, or other personal or real property.

Each state defines the crime of theft differently, but generally this crime involves the unlawful entry into a structure or building for the purpose of committing a crime in it, such as theft or arson. In some states, burglary applies only to houses or dwellings, while in other states it applies to any building or structure, including office buildings, tool sheds, and cars.

In most states, juries are instructed that merely being present at the scene of a crime, even with guilty knowledge that a crime is being committed, is not enough to convict a person of a crime.

But there are principles of criminal liability that apply to people other than the person who actually committed a crime. For example, under federal law, there is a crime called “misprision” of a felony, which applies to a person who has actual knowledge of the commission of a felony and doesn’t report it to the authorities.

Also, under federal and most state laws, a person can be held criminally liable as an “accessory after the fact” if she has knowledge that a crime was committed and assists the offender to hinder his apprehension, trial or punishment. You can also be guilty of aiding and abetting a crime if you help another person in committing the crime, with knowledge of the criminal nature of the act they’re committing.

Aiding and abetting applies to someone who assists or helps one or more other people commit a crime. To be held accountable as an aider and abettor, you must know of the criminal objective and do something to make it succeed. For example, if you drive your friend to a meeting where you know your friend is going to buy drugs, you may be an aider and abettor in the drug transaction.

Knowledge is key here.

It is clear that Chelsea had no knowledge of what was going to happen and Robinson obviously acted on the spur of the moment. And he said so in his first interrogation with police and it concurred with what Chelsea had declared.

The only logical explanation is that she was shocked and her reaction was to freeze and to obey his command to drive away.

Guilt by Association

To be guilty by association refers to the attribution of guilt without any proof on individuals solely for the reason that those whom they associated with were guilty.

In this case, it goes further because Chelsea was not merely standing by but driving the car so she was convicted of Accountability to Theft and Arson.

Laws vary by state but in common criminal law, being an accomplice, conspiracy, solicitation, and guilt by association are all different crimes. The first three are called inchoate crimes under the common law.

Under legal systems where guilt by association is allowed, Chelsea could be charged merely for being in the same place with those who were guilty and not taking affirmative action to stop them.

However, in the US, guilt by association is not allowed under the constitution. To be guilty without direct action, a person must either solicit, conspire with, or aid/assist someone else toward a criminal action. So Chelsea could not be guilty merely by being in the presence of others who committed a crime.

Because under the US Constitution, freedom of association is a fundamental right and mere association, without an assistance or agreement to commit a criminal action, is not a crime. Nor (with a few narrow exceptions) does a private citizen have the duty to affirmatively act to stop a crime they witness. So, because Chelsea did nothing to assist or plan the crimes, she is not guilty of anything — guilt by association is not permitted and does not apply.

But because Laws vary by state, the lines can often be fuzzy. Did the jury interpret her driving the vehicle as aiding in the commission of a crime?

Deer in headlights syndrome

We all experience moments when we feel out of our depth. Mostly it happens when something occurs that goes against our preconceptions of what could possibly happen. Some people take a moment to blink and then shoot into action, while others sort of freeze in place unable to decide what to do. This last course of action, or rather inaction, is often referred to as the deer in the headlights syndrome.

Unfortunately, these moments can happen after years of being confronted with scenarios where one does not know what to do or think of a way to cope with it. What usually happens is that a person confronted with such a situation will usually copy someone else’s behavior or obey an order. They might feel stupid afterwards for not having the right reaction during the occurrence but it gives them a semblance of an idea of what to do.

When Chelsea encountered this shocking event, she froze and went along with what Robinson told her to do. She did not have time to react and her emotional makeup did not allow her to react by fleeing or to quickly form a plan of action.

I will go further and say that what law enforcement is asking private citizens to do in such cases, borders on vigilantism. What about if the culprit turns on you and it endangers your life? She did not have time to reflect on the matter. She had reported Russel’s crime at work but it was not a spontaneous action. Had she tried to intervene in this matter, she would not have been protected in any way. If Robinson acted recklessly once, he could have done it again. So her mission was to get rid of him and reach her boyfriend to discuss a course of action.

Pre-trial

•  After her arrest in July, 2011, Chelsea was released from jail on bond and spent two years being monitored and wearing an ankle bracelet. She never missed a court appearance or tried to flee.
•  She was employed as head housekeeper at a local motel and had her own residence. Her fiancé, who is a good man with no criminal record, stood by her every step of the way. Her mother has also been advocating for her daughter from day one.
•  Her employer has written a letter describing her as a model employee and a reliable human being. She is also from all accounts, an excellent mother.

The trial

Statement of Facts

• On the day of the incident, on October 7, 2011, Chafee had taken Robinson for a drive in her green Nissan Pathfinder with the intention of dropping him off afterwards at the Poverello Help Center. She and Matt were trying to help Robinson get back on his feet. He was living in a halfway house and was quite down on his luck. When he asked her to pull over, he got out of Chafee’s vehicle and attempted to gain entry to a vehicle by the roadside that he recognized. It was locked, so he smashed the window with a rock, retrieved the belongings that had been let in the car, and put them in Chafee’s car. He then lit the car on fire and told her to drive away.
• He denies having planned the crime before he saw the car on the side of the road; the car had been left there two days previously by the owners, Luke and Amanda Kasun, after their two dogs had failed to come back from an exercise run. They were hoping they would return to the familiar vehicle. So Robinson had no way of knowing the car would be parked at this location.
• When they were intercepted a short time later and interviewed by police separately, they both gave the same account: Chelsea did not participate in any way except for the driving. In fact, she never got out of her vehicle. She intended to call police after dropping off Robinson but with her boyfriend, maybe because Missoula cops had a really bad reputation for their handling of cases involving vulnerable women. Over eighty alleged rapes were reported in Missoula during these years and it took nearly one hundred complaints to convince the Justice Department to look into the conduct of the Missoula County Attorney’s Office and the Police Department.
• The prosecution found themselves a witness to testify that Chelsea had knowledge and participated in the incident. Her former co-worker Jeffrey Russell testified that he once inquired about the night of the fire and that Chafee told him that she and Robinson were drinking and broke into the car. He said that she told him she had doused the inside of the car with lighter fluid and that ‘’It was just something to do.’’
• The problem is that Deputy Schmill testified that he investigated the crime scene, looked for accelerants, and found none in either car. He had photographed the burning vehicle and the tire tracks and there were only footsteps from one person on the ground.
• They tested Chelsea and she was totally sober but Robinson was inebriated.
• During cross-examination by the defense, Russell conceded that Chafee had reported him to their former employer, Garden City Janitorial for stealing from a client, taking money from petty cash, and accessing a computer without authorization. Russell was fired as a result of his conduct.

• A conversation also came up that Russell had on Yahoo with a friend called Christy Clark where he calls Chelsea a ‘fucking bitch’ and her fiancé a ‘piece of shit’, and adds that this is his reason for testifying against her. He also states that he wanted to go beat Matt up at his house and could use the $100 witness fee. He obviously had an ax to grind.
• Matt and Chelsea obtained a temporary Order of Protection against Jeffrey Russell signed by a judge.
•  So much for the witness whose honesty Donovan was vouching for in front of the jury.
• Subsequently, the Stated elicited testimony from Russell to the effect that Chafee was also involved in the scheme to steal from their former employer. But there is absolutely no evidence that she was investigated and the State did not disclose its intention to use evidence of other acts prior to trial.
• The State also alleged that Chelsea had stolen email/texts containing the incriminating conversations between Christy and Russell.
• In his continued attempts at attacking Chafee and Robinson’s credibility, prosecutor M. Shaun Donovan described Robinson as having a lengthy criminal record and history of ‘ofdoing’  and ‘’all this other sort of stuff.’’  There was no actual evidence that Robinson had a lengthy criminal history.
• The State’s presentation of evidence and its closing argument focused extensively on whether Chafee could have contacted law enforcement and whether she attempted to leave the scene.
• Prior to trial, the State offered jury instructions but the Defense counsel did not offer a single jury instruction. Neither party offered a jury instruction stating that mere presence at the crime scene is not sufficient for accountability and does not create a duty to intervene.
• Prosecutor Donovan improperly vouched for Russell’s credibility.
• At the conclusion of the State’s closing argument, Donovan argued that the jury needed to look “into the essence of what you know is right.”
• The Defense counsel objected and the Court overruled, stating “This is argument.” The State went on to argue that the jury should “use those attributes about yourself that the defense doesn’t want you to consider, like common sense, like what you believe is most true.’’
• Donovan overstepped the proper boundaries of zealous advocacy on several occasions during the trial in his statements about the credibility of some witnesses and his insertion of doubtful evidence in order to leave the jury in a position to find the defendant guilty.

In March 2013, Chelsea was found guilty. She went in front of the Judge and he sentenced her to 10 years with 8 years suspended for accountability to arson and to 10 years with 8 years suspended for accountability to theft. He rules that both sentences should run concurrently.

And he declared: “The reasons for the sentence that is imposed are that the court sees no reason to punish the defendant with more prison time as she has made progress and this will be a step down sentence that can get her back to a productive and law abiding life “.

Appeal

Chelsea has appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Court erred when it overruled Defense counsel’s objection to the State’s improper closing argument, which instructed the jury they could find the proper verdict in their hearts and souls.

The cumulative effect of ineffective assistance of counsel and prosecutorial misconduct resulted in a violation of Chafee’s Constitutional rights and an unfair trial.

Chelsea’s good behavior

It would be logical for someone like Chelsea to be released to reunite her with her daughter and support system. It costs the State more money to keep her incarcerated when she could be a productive member of society and even pay restitution.

• She has participated in several programs and completed them successfully, even if she was not required to do so: WRAP, Relapse Prevention, TAMAR, Anger Management.
• She participated in the “Prison Paws for Humanity” dog training program and has trained 5 dogs so far.
• She worked for the Montana Women’s Prison Industries doing Custom Embroidery & Garment Printing.
• She has been offered and accepted a full time dog groomer job.
• She participates in the parenting program and she has 4 monthly visits with her daughter Hayleigh.
• She has 14 month of clear conduct and good behavior and a good work history and work evaluations.
• She basically has a great attitude towards law and authority and when she appeared in front of committees, they sent her to the Billings Pre-Release Center. She was there for about 3 weeks. On December 13, 2013 they picked her up and gave no reason why they were taking her back to the Montana Women’s prison in spite of exemplary behavior and conduct. They later mentioned the possibility of a felony they had to investigate but that remains a mystery. When the court commits you to the Department of Corrections, you can only hope for the best.

Chelsea plans to go to College upon her release and obtain a degree. She has 2 job offers and also has a place to live when she is paroled. She has had the full support of family members and friends while incarcerated which she will continue to have upon her release. Chelsea is trying to regain custody of her 8 year old daughter whose custody is now shared between her grandmother and her biological dad. In fact, she has done more to prove herself as a good citizen and a mother than most people will ever do on the outside.

When you look closely at this flimsy case and realize that a productive mother is stuck in jail because she was too shell-shocked to react during the commission of someone else’s crime, you wonder where you can get justice nowadays.

Certainly not in that Montana courtroom where an overzealous prosecutor was so preoccupied with winning his case and pleasing the public because the case was in the media, that he vouched for the testimony of a vindictive and dishonest witness in order to get a guilty verdict against an innocent girl. Chelsea simply acted like a deer in the headlights after having associated with the wrong person she was trying to help.

This type of guilt by association is common, and party-to-the-crime statutes are incredibly far-reaching. Reversing these weak convictions should be easy but that is not always the case.

It makes us wonder why some juries and judges are so eager to convict and incarcerate people even if the crime was committed by someone else.

If you want to know more about Chelsea, you can visit her Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Free-Chelsea-Chafee/659842550728513

I am happy to report that with the help of the public, the Kasuns’ dogs were found after roaming for six days in the mountains.

Two outstandingly ridiculous cases of guilt by association

• A defendant called Miller was accused of participating in the rape of a minor because he saw his roommate on the dance floor with the victim earlier in the evening and did not do anything to prevent the upcoming rape. His conviction was reversed.

• A defendant called Omot was charged with drug crimes because his roommate had marijuana in his dresser drawer. The drawer did not even belong to him. The third roommate testified that she never saw him use or sell marijuana.

• He was charged and sent to jail because the police found a picture of him in the house where he held a firearm. According to prosecutor, it showed he ‘’was ready and willing to act as an enforcer.’’ His conviction was reversed.

•  Now there is a movement suggesting the parents of offenders should be prosecuted. Where does it end?