Barisone Aftermath: Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity, And Then

[ekat]

@hut-ho78

Because of that, they are often stigmatized as anyone approving their release is aware of what they have already done and how dangerous they were. They are often institutionalized for twice as long as they would be had they been found guilty.

Where are you coming up with that? Not from the Krol decision or other subsequent decisions in NJ? The NJ courts have been quite clear on how ACQUITEES are to be treated. Because they’ve been acquitted.

Also, the NJ statute you linked specifically states:

“ The defendant’s continued commitment, under the law governing civil commitment, shall be established by a preponderance of the evidence, during the maximum period of imprisonment that could have been imposed, as an ordinary term of imprisonment, for any charge on which the defendant has been acquitted by reason of insanity.

Expiration of that maximum period of imprisonment shall be calculated by crediting the defendant with any time spent in confinement for the charge or charges on which the defendant has been acquitted by reason of insanity. “

[DQHubby]

Try googling ’ in New Jersey, does the jury need to find the defendant guilty, before reaching not guilty due to insanity’. I don’t know why the web address is not working. It’s working on the google site. It’s the second listing on page 1.

[Knights_Mom]

Guilty but insane is different.

[DQHubby]

To quote from the New Jersey Court Model Criminal Jury Charges,https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/criminalcharges.html section https://www.njcourts.gov/attorneys/assets/criminalcharges/respons1.pdf
page 4 of 5 'You may return one of three verdicts
(1) Not guilty.
(2) Guilty.
(3) Not guilty by reason of insanity.

If you find that the State has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt all or any one of
INSANITY
N.J.S.A. 2C:4-1
Page 5 of 5
the essential elements of the offense, or the defendant’s participation in the offense, you must
find the defendant not guilty.
If you find that the State has proved beyond a reasonable doubt all the essential elements
of the offense and the defendant’s participation therein, and if you also find that the defendant
has not established the defense of insanity to a preponderance of the credible evidence, then you
must find the defendant guilty of the offense.
If you find that the State has proved all the elements of the crime and the defendant’s
participation therein beyond a reasonable doubt, and if you also find that the defendant has
established the defense of insanity by a preponderance of the credible evidence, your verdict
must be “not guilty by reason of insanity” and you shall so report and declare your verdict.’

Where does it say that a not guilty due to insanity means the prosecution did not prove the charges against the defendant? The defendant was found guilty of doing the deed, but was unable to comprehend the reality or right/wrong of what defendant did ie insane at the time of the crime.

[DQHubby]

I have no dog in this fight. I look at the what the jury was told by the judge as to the possible verdicts and their meaning. I also looked at the documentation provided by the New Jersey Court system. No politics, no lying, no favorites. The jury found the prosecution proved the charges against the defendant and the defense proved the defendant was insane at the time of the crime. The jury also found the defendant not guilty in the second attempted murder charge and gun related charges.

[hut-ho78]

Brace yourself!

[DQHubby]

No need, if I can be shown to be wrong in my understanding of how the jury came to the not guilty due to insanity, I’m fine with that. But, I need to see New Jersey Court documents sited as the source of my possible misunderstanding and not personal feelings or opinions. I will be curious if the defense files an appeal. I also, think Barisone is wrongly being held in jail. He should be in a psychiatric facility getting the help required and being assessed to see if he can rejoin society safely.

[hut-ho78]

Agree. Unfortunately, the jails have become holding cells for highly overcrowded mental health institutions. It’s not just New Jersey. It’s everywhere.

He does have a chance to rebuild his life, to vote, to be in good standing with SafeSport, to have every freedom of his old life, and perhaps to have received helpful treatment, to be stronger and more content than ever so there is that.

[FitzE]

My post was not in reference to you or your post.

[DQHubby]

Thank-you

[ekat]

@DQHubby

I will be curious if the defense files an appeal. I also, think Barisone is wrongly being held in jail

You can’t appeal an acquittal.

I completely agree with you that he is wrongly still being held in jail.

[BigMama1]

@DQHubby

I will be curious if the defense files an appeal.

Why would the defense appeal? I don’t think they can, since he was acquitted. And why would you appeal an acquittal?

[DQHubby]

In Canada not guilty due to insanity is not an acquittal. Don’t have time to research New Jersey law this morning. Can you provide the source for your position. 'Instead of punishing them, a judge or jury can declare them not criminally responsible for their actions due to a mental illness. This is not an acquittal . However, it is a recognition that the accused committed the crime but that they should not be punished because they did not “choose” to commit the crime.'https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/not-criminally-responsible-mental-illness/

[ekat]

It’s been linked here before but in NJ specifically Krol is the controlling case law. In NJ specifically, NGRI is an acquittal.

State v. Krol

[eggbutt]

@ekat

It’s been linked here before but in NJ specifically Krol is the controlling case law. In NJ specifically, NGRI is an acquittal.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1975/68-n-j-236-0.html

This constant having to educate is tiresome, isn’t it?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@DQHubby

In Canada not guilty due to insanity is not an acquittal. Don’t have time to research New Jersey law this morning. Can you provide the source for your position. 'Instead of punishing them, a judge or jury can declare them not criminally responsible for their actions due to a mental illness. This is not an acquittal . However, it is a recognition that the accused committed the crime but that they should not be punished because they did not “choose” to commit the crime.'https://educaloi.qc.ca/en/capsules/not-criminally-responsible-mental-illness/

Barisone cannot appeal the verdict of NGRI because that is what he plead. If he had plead plain not guilty, and been found guilty, he could appeal. But he plead NGRI, and was found NGRI for the two counts wrt LK.

If he had wanted to try for a straight “not guilty”, he would have had to have plead “not guilty”.

Even if the US considers NGRI an acquittal while Canada considers it not an acquittal, that’s mostly semantics. I agree with you that by the judge‘s flow chart it is obvious that NGRI is only given when the prosecution has established beyond a reasonable doubt all the elements of the case, and, in addition, the defense meets its burden to establish insanity.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@ekat

It’s been linked here before but in NJ specifically Krol is the controlling case law. In NJ specifically, NGRI is an acquittal.

https://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/1975/68-n-j-236-0.html

This constant having to educate is tiresome, isn’t it?

In terms of semantics, it is considered an acquittal in the US. But DQHubby is correct that to get to NGRI, as opposed to NG, the jury has determined that the prosecution established all the elements of its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ekat]

@CurrentlyHorseless

that’s mostly semantics

But it’s not semantics, it’s the law in NJ. He cannot appeal an acquittal. Period. It’s not because that’s what he pled. It’s because he was ACQUITTED under NJ law. He’s not Guilty But Insane, like my state or apparently Canada. He’s been acquitted and no defendant can appeal an acquittal, which is what this discussion is about.

[MorganSercu]

This Directive, which supersedes Directive # 9-96, “Krol Commitments” (issued December 3, 1996), sets forth the procedures for defendants who are acquitted and found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI),

[ekat]

@eggbutt

This constant having to educate is tiresome, isn’t it?

Yes. No matter how people may try, Michael Barisone will never be Guilty in this case.