Chud the Builder convicted of attempted murder?

Resolution Criteria

Dalton Eatherly (Chud the Builder) has been charged with Attempted Murder by The State of Tennessee. You can read more about that here: https://www.local3news.com/regional-national/livestreamer-known-for-racist-content-faces-attempted-murder-charge-bond-set-at-1-25-million/article_11dcac35-652f-5716-8a86-1f10157764e0.html This market will resolve to "Yes" if Dalton Eatherly is convicted of any attempted murder charge in the ongoing State of Tennessee v. Dalton Levi Eatherly (63GS1-2026-CR-5295) by July 31, 2027, 11:59 PM ET. Otherwise, this market will resolve to "No". If this case ends due to a plea agreement without an admission of guilt, a dismissal, or results in any situation in which no judgment is rendered by the court, this market will resolve to "No". If all relevant charges are dropped, or otherwise changed such that no further attempted murder charges remain, this market will immediately resolve to "No". If there is a mistrial, this market will stay open until the resolution date (July 31) to consider further retrials. If an attempted murder conviction has not been rendered by July 31, 2027, this market will resolve to “No”. This market will resolve according to the initial judgment rendered in this case. Any appeals will have no bearing on the resolution of this market. The primary resolution source will be an official judgment delivered by the ruling court; however, other credible reporting may be used.

Prediction markets show 'No' as the heavily dominant outcome for whether Dalton Eatherly, known online as Chud the Builder, will be convicted of attempted murder in Tennessee by 31 July 2027. The market is a binary yes/no question, with volume concentrated firmly against a conviction occurring within the resolution window. Resolution depends on an official court judgment in State of Tennessee v. Dalton Levi Eatherly (63GS1-2026-CR-5295) before the deadline.

Market structure

This is a binary market with two outcomes: conviction on an attempted murder charge before 31 July 2027, or no such conviction. Volume is heavily concentrated on the 'No' outcome. Resolution requires an official judgment from the ruling court; plea agreements without admission of guilt, dismissals, and dropped charges all resolve the market 'No'. Mistrials extend the window to the deadline rather than triggering immediate resolution. The primary resolution source is the official court record, with credible reporting as a secondary source.

Background

Dalton Eatherly, a livestreamer who built an online audience through controversial content, was charged with attempted murder by the State of Tennessee in a case indexed as 63GS1-2026-CR-5295. Bond was set at $1.25 million following his arrest. Eatherly had attracted public attention — and significant criticism — for content characterised by racist material on various streaming platforms. The case drew media coverage linking his online persona to the criminal proceedings, raising questions about how courts handle defendants with high-profile internet presences. Attempted murder charges in Tennessee carry severe sentencing consequences if a conviction is secured, making the outcome of the case significant both legally and as a point of public interest for those following his content.

Key factors

Several structural factors shape whether a conviction could occur before the July 2027 deadline. First, the pace of the criminal justice process matters enormously: pretrial motions, discovery, and scheduling can push trial dates beyond the resolution window, causing the market to resolve 'No' through delay rather than acquittal. Second, the strength of the prosecution's evidence and the specific circumstances of the alleged offence will determine whether the case proceeds to trial or resolves through a plea. A plea agreement without admission of guilt resolves the market 'No' regardless of underlying facts. Third, the defence strategy — including challenges to evidence or witness testimony — could result in charge reductions that remove the attempted murder element entirely, triggering immediate 'No' resolution. Fourth, a mistrial would not end the market but would require a retrial to conclude with a conviction before the deadline. Any conviction rendered at first judgment is final for resolution purposes; subsequent appeals have no bearing.

FAQ