Barisone Trial Starting Monday, 3/28

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@soloudinhere

@CurrentlyHorseless

I haven’t seen the actual lawyers contradict the statement that in an affirmative defense (such as NGI), the defense has the burden of proving what they’re affirming (in most states). The standard of proof is usually by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, though. The prosecutor must still prove the elements of his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The part you keep missing: if the prosecution does not prove the elements of his case, it doesn’t rise to the level of needing to prove diminished culpability.

Good grief. I didn’t miss that at all. In the post of mine you just quoted I said plainly that the prosecutor must prove the elements of his own case. Do you think Bilinkas will not attempt to affirm insanity because he’s so sure that the prosecution has not met it’s burden on its own case?

[soloudinhere]

@CurrentlyHorseless

In terms of order of witnesses, though, wouldn’t the prosecutor save their psych expert until after the defense had made the case for insanity?

They can only call witnesses that can specifically rebut the testimony (which they don’t know what the testimony is yet). Thus, yes, you can do it that way, but it’s not usually what you want to do, because you don’t know specifically what that witness will be allowed to rebut.

Also, relying on rebuttal witnesses is risky, because the judge doesn’t have to allow it due to time constraints and respect for the jury. Otherwise the case could go on ad infinitem with new people being produced to rebut what the rebuttal said until nobody has any idea what is true or not.

[MHM]

Sidebar. Again.

If I think of it tomorrow, I might run a stopwatch to keep track of exactly how much time in the day is spent on the combined sidebars.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Another sidebar

[eggbutt]

@soloudinhere

@CurrentlyHorseless

I haven’t seen the actual lawyers contradict the statement that in an affirmative defense (such as NGI), the defense has the burden of proving what they’re affirming (in most states). The standard of proof is usually by a preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt, though. The prosecutor must still prove the elements of his case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The part you keep missing: if the prosecution does not prove the elements of his case, it doesn’t rise to the level of needing to prove diminished culpability.

Please explain this further. I have no idea what this means…can you explain to us as though several of us are 6th graders please?

[KurPlexed]

Maybe he was going to fix the fire detectors. He thought they moved out (like he did) and needed to house himself and his employees. Brought the gun in case they showed back up.

I loved the hay guy. What a genuine person

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@eggbutt

Please explain this further. I have no idea what this means…can you explain to us as though several of us are 6th graders please?

Yes. I need this explained to me as well.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@soloudinhere

@CurrentlyHorseless

In terms of order of witnesses, though, wouldn’t the prosecutor save their psych expert until after the defense had made the case for insanity?

They can only call witnesses that can specifically rebut the testimony (which they don’t know what the testimony is yet). Thus, yes, you can do it that way, but it’s not usually what you want to do, because you don’t know specifically what that witness will be allowed to rebut.

Also, relying on rebuttal witnesses is risky, because the judge doesn’t have to allow it due to time constraints and respect for the jury. Otherwise the case could go on ad infinitem with new people being produced to rebut what the rebuttal said until ad infinitem nobody has any idea what is true or not.

I assume the state has its own expert psych witness prepared to testify on whether or not MB met the legal standard for insanity.

Would you have expected such a witness to testify as part of the initial prosecution case, before the defense attempted to establish that MB was insane?

[BrownDerby]

@KurPlexed

I loved the hay guy. What a genuine person

And he had the decency to wear a suit and tie. That does not come easy for those in his field.

[Scribbler]

My best guess would be MB was aware that LK/RG were still in the house and not aware the evacuation order had been lifted.

As far as the timeline of trouble. I’ve certainly seen scenarios with barn boarders, or volunteer organizations, or even students, where someone is a problem. But initially their conflicts are not with the top ranking decision makers but with the lower ranked people who deal with them face to face. They can do things like provoke conflict that make s it seem they are the injured party. While it still sucking up to the higher ranked person.

Eventually the lid blows off and the person faces consequences or is kicked out. But it can be difficult in the meantime for the lower level folks that deal direct or are targeted by the crazy person if they are not believed. Told you are over reacting or not diplomatic enough or even caused the problem. Then later that you were totally right.

Based on my experience I could totally see a situation in April where LK was harassing MHG in away that wasn’t obvious to MB. Later of course he realized that it was all true.

[eggbutt]

Let me just say if I knew I was going to be anywhere near that dog, I’d be packing heavy heat for sure. I can even believe that dog was taught to attack/bite viciously.

[Sticky_Situation]

So MB told the paramedics all he remembered was a woman coming down the driveway saying she was going to take the kids.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Scribbler

As far as the timeline of trouble. I’ve certainly seen scenarios with barn boarders, or volunteer organizations, or even students, where someone is a problem. But initially their conflicts are not with the top ranking decision makers but with the lower ranked people who deal with them face to face. They can do things like provoke conflict that make s it seem they are the injured party. While it still sucking up to the higher ranked person.

Eventually the lid blows off and the person faces consequences or is kicked out. But it can be difficult in the meantime for the lower level folks that deal direct or are targeted by the crazy person if they are not believed. Told you are over reacting or not diplomatic enough or even caused the problem. Then later that you were totally right.

Based on my experience I could totally see a situation in April where LK was harassing MHG in away that wasn’t obvious to MB. Later of course he realized that it was all true.

Gaslighting 101 - horse people version.

[ohnoO]

Yep! Anyone who has a farm (or anyone for that matter) should have a guy in their life like the hay guy!

[LilRanger]

@soloudinhere

Otherwise the case could go on ad infinitem with new people being produced to rebut what the rebuttal said until nobody has any idea what is true or not.

Too late!

[LilRanger]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Would you have expected such a witness to testify as part of the initial prosecution case, before the defense attempted to establish that MB was insane?

Yes, because what if the defense doesn’t call the psychological expert? You’re toast.

[Dragonfly90]

He didn’t see all their vehicles parked there?

[KurPlexed]

Agreed. I’d love to meet him and the surgeon for a drink one day.

[MHM]

I have to say it seems like both of the EMS witnesses came today better prepared to testify than LK’s lawyer this morning.

I think the second EMS worker even brought her own copy of her EMS report from that day!

Edited to add: And the last witness brought his own glasses! Yay.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

I thought the same thing!