Barisone- New Thread

[anon6923113]

I just want to say now, for the record, when a few of us guessed the n Monday how long the jury might be out… I guessed 2 days.

If they can’t come to a verdict by this afternoon?

I’d imagine the result of this trial is going to be a hung jury.

[AltersAreUs]

@Rel6

Two witnesses testified that he did shoot the gun - and that is uncontradicted. Even by the defendant’s own attorney and trial strategy.

Without MB testifying (the only other witness to the event), the defense can’t make that statement. MB is the only other witness to what happened and he’s got no memory. The police found nothing that would be evidence to someone else shooting the gun (because they didn’t look).

The defense is NOT allowed to just go off on a theory about how Rosie (for example) might have shot the LK. Every attempt the defense made in that direction was shut down hard by the judge, especially anything that might hint that MB was beaten & bitten before the gun was shot. There is no direct evidence so the judge did not allow alternative scenarios.

Without evidence, the defense cannot directly contradict the charge.

[Angela_Freda]

@Rel6

But the standard is reasonable doubt. So when you have 3 people there, 2 say X happened, and the third doesn’t contradict that - I think its going to be hard for a jury to find reasonable doubt. (Not factoring in the insanity issue, or the intent issue which is being discussed now).

How about the lying issue?

[MHM]

@Rel6

I don’t know NJ state court, and maybe someone else does. But generally, jury instructions are not really written by the judge from scratch. There are jury instructions that have been written by legal experts and tailored to explain/include the elements of each crime to a jury. Then you grab each component of jury instruction you need for a specific case, and compile them together and fill in the specifics.

Yes, that was what the judge and the lawyers were doing in the courtroom on Friday when the jury was not there, going over and adjusting the jury instructions to make sure they were accurate and correct.

I think that video is available on YouTube. Probably day 10 of the trial?

[Sdel]

@Rel6

There has been evidence that he did shoot the gun. Two witnesses testified that he did shoot the gun - and that is uncontradicted.

Not completely un-contradicted. They each have a different and completely contradictory version of events; and were shown to have lied in other areas of testimony.

The judge has instructed the jury that they can indeed disregard their testimony: false in one, false in all.

[Angela_Freda]

@Sdel

false in one, false in all

Will this be the 48 hours title for this episode?

[Sdel]

@Angela_Freda

@Sdel

false in one, false in all

Will this be the 48 hours title for this episode?

Sounds like a good one to me…

What is incredibly interesting is how many of the talking heads have stated thinking they were lying….

[Jealoushe]

They also said in the True Criem Daily podcast something along the lines of its not being disputed he shot the gun but what happened surrounding it is.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@anon6923113

Yes. Bilinkas would have had to have some evidence of an alternative scenario, or MB would have had to testify to something. The defense isn’t allowed to make up alternative scenarios out of whole cloth.

Given the testimony of the ear witness on direct examination, he said that he was at the very beginning of a calm conversation with LK. She said “Michael is here.” Within 15 seconds of conversing with her, he said he heard the shots and heard her say she had been shot.

If RG had jumped him and beaten him and the gun went off after even 20 seconds of a struggle,in self defense or by accident, ED would have heard the beating/yelling/struggle before he heard gun shots. That’s obvious.

If Bilinkas wanted to introduce either of those alternatives to the state’s case, he could have brought it up with ED on cross examination.

He didn’t. Why? ED would have reiterated even more emphatically that he heard no sounds of a struggle/grunting/yelling.

The fact that a struggle was going on was painfully obvious on the 911 call. ED would have heard the same sounds of struggle if MB had been assaulted prior to shooting.

Even if he was convinced ED would lie and say he heard no sounds of a struggle, Bilinkas could have used his cross examination to try to introduce his “MB was attacked first” alternative.

But it’s really not very plausible. MB was the one who armed himself and took himself over there.

[Fat_Dinah]

I think it could be a split jury. Different findings on different charges.
It is a complicated case - working through murder, assault, insanity for two charges - so I don’t see two days as excessive. Beyond today, I think a reasonable inference is that there is a disagreement between jurors. But not on all charges, maybe just one.

[roseymare]

You see how many guesses you can go without guessing the word. I can’t get past four.

[MHM]

@anon6923113

@Rel6

That is it exactly. Lots of copying and pasting and then fill in the blank. Lawyers from each side submit the instructions they want (and sometimes get too creative). But judges (IME) tend to stick to very standard, well-established jury instructions that address each issue. Failing to instruct on something, or instructing in the wrong way, can be grounds for reversal on appeal, so its a thought out process.

Ironically, I’m pretty sure the original Vertetis trial, for which Taylor was the judge and Bilinkas was the primary defense attorney? Well, the appeal was successful because Taylor improperly instructed the jury on the relevant defense laws.

I was thinking the exact same thing.

[anon68314200]

Which leaves us all wondering how we would feel if 12 COTHers were chosen at random to serve on a jury trial we were involved in…

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@SillyHorse

@CurrentlyHorseless

Exactly. As the principal, you authorized him to act as your agent to get the permits.

And how do you know that RG did not convince MB that he (RG) would act as MB’s agent and get permits? It’s not as though RG has never been known to lie, right?

Do you imagine MB thought RG was a licensed contractor when he hired him with the sloppy barter arrangement?

I doubt an unlicensed contractor is allowed to pull permits.

To have it done by the book, MB would have had to hire a licensed contractor, then authorize the licensed contractor to act as his agent to pull the permits.

[TwiSedai]

Oooh I just tried that one, made it to five

[ScaredOfHorses]

We have to be approaching 11 hours of deliberations for 11 days of trial. Vinnie Politan, CourtTV lawyer, says that’s when prosecutors need to start to worry about a hung jury or NG.

I’m so nervous. I really want this guy set free.

[Rhythm_Pace_Impulsion]

Bob is at it again on yesterdays YouTube feed

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Do you imagine MB thought RG was a licensed contractor when he hired him with the sloppy barter arrangement?

I doubt an unlicensed contractor is allowed to pull permits.

Well, LK went on about talking RG into creating an LLC for his “work” and at one point he did actually work for a company that did renovations. It is entirely within reasonable to assume that RG was legitimate and legally able to engage in the service that was being bartered for (even without the heavy doses of manipulating that were being applied)

[MHM]

@anon6923113

I just want to say now, for the record, when a few of us guessed the n Monday how long the jury might be out… I guessed 2 days.

If they can’t come to a verdict by this afternoon?

I’d imagine the result of this trial is going to be a hung jury.

Well, technically, I don’t know if Monday even really counts for jury deliberation. They were only at it for about an hour or so, and it sounds like they spent a good chunk of that time worrying about whether or not they were being recorded. Lol.

But for sure, the longer it takes, the more you have to wonder about the odds of a hung jury.

[Rel6]

Yes, that is correct. So the witnesses who did testify remain uncontradicted. My point is the same as yours (I think?)

The defense needed some type evidence to contradict, they didn’t have any, so the two witnesses’ accounts remain uncontradicted. I’m not saying the defense agreed, just that nothing the defense put forward contradicted the two eyewitness accounts of how the shooting happened.