Chrystul Kizer’s Case Draws National Attention
Chrystul Kizer, a Milwaukee woman who claimed she killed a man because he was sexually trafficking her, was sentenced to 11 years in prison on Monday after pleading guilty to a reduced charge of second-degree reckless homicide. The case has drawn significant national attention due to the complexities surrounding sex trafficking and self-defense.
Sentencing and Plea Deal
A Kenosha County judge sentenced Kizer to 11 years of initial confinement, followed by 5 years of extended supervision. Kizer, who is now 24 years old, was credited with 570 days (about one and a half years) of time already served. The judge also ruled that she would not be eligible for any early release programs, meaning she is expected to be released in 2033.
Kizer’s guilty plea to second-degree reckless homicide in May allowed her to avoid a trial on more severe charges, including first-degree intentional homicide, which could have resulted in a life sentence.
The 2018 Killing of Randall Volar
The case stems from the 2018 death of Randall Volar, 34, whom Kizer shot at his Kenosha home when she was 17 years old. After the shooting, Kizer set Volar’s house on fire and stole his BMW. She was subsequently charged with multiple counts, including arson, car theft, and being a felon in possession of a firearm.
Kizer claimed that she met Volar on a sex trafficking website and that he had been molesting her and selling her as a prostitute for a year leading up to his death. She told detectives that she shot Volar in self-defense after he attempted to touch her.
Legal Defense
Kizer’s legal team argued that she could not be held criminally liable for the killing under a 2008 Wisconsin law that provides immunity to sex trafficking victims for any offenses committed as a direct result of being trafficked. This law, similar to those passed in other states over the last decade, aims to protect victims of trafficking from criminal prosecution for actions taken under duress.
Prosecutors, however, contended that the law was never intended to cover homicide. They argued that extending such protections to cases of murder would set a dangerous precedent.
