Barisone Trial Starting Monday, 3/28

[MHM]

@Dapple_Grey

I would say so.

Maybe not after today.

[ohnoO]

Well, maybe it’s not a hill worth dying on, and they might even not know about it until it happens

[Warmblood1]

If LK doesn’t have a drivers license it would be reasonable to say a car wouldn’t necessarily indicate if LK was or wasn’t there. Not sure about RG, however. So I would speculate MB took the gun for personal protection in case they were.

[Scribbler]

@Sticky_Situation

Does “attempted manslaughter” even exist? I thought manslaughter was for when someone’s actions led to a death, but they did not intend for the death to happen. So wouldn’t “attempted manslaughter” just be plain old assault?

I feel like we had this conversation early days and the information from folks that knew NJ law was that if the victim didn’t die the possible charges were attempted murder or aggravated assault (not sure of exact wording but assault). If they do die, its murder in various degrees or manslaughter depending on intention.

I have a hypothetical. Let’s say you have a victim that dies, no witness, and a defedendent that has amnesia. How does that play out in court?

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@soloudinhere

The finding must always be in favor of the defendant if there is reasonable doubt that the defendant either committed the act in question to the standard required (eg attempted murder is a different standard than aggravated assault) OR if the defendant would be criminally culpable if there is a mitigating standard such as self defense.

If they doubt that the defendant did what the prosecution said he did for the reasons they said he did it, or they believe he might have acted in self defense or not been of sound mind, then the finding must be not guilty.

I do not believe that NJ has attempted manslaughter, I believe the charge would be aggravated assault, but I am not an attorney in the state of NJ.

Thanks for clarifying this.

FYI… the attorney making this whole “they will downgrade it to attempted manslaughter “ argument is Andrew Branca, and he has been following the Barisone trial on his YouTube channel “The law of self defense” and he and other defense attorneys seem to want to pick apart what Bilinkas is doing, in real time.

I get the sense Andrew Branca is just trying to hock a book or something…

[Knights_Mom]

@DownYonder

I would think there would be some leeway for witnesses that object. For instance, if they say, “I’m not a Christian,” wouldn’t the judge allow them to take a modified oath w/o placing their hand on the Bible and saying “Almighty God”?

We swear of AFFIRM for just that reason.

[Knights_Mom]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@soloudinhere

The finding must always be in favor of the defendant if there is reasonable doubt that the defendant either committed the act in question to the standard required (eg attempted murder is a different standard than aggravated assault) OR if the defendant would be criminally culpable if there is a mitigating standard such as self defense.

If they doubt that the defendant did what the prosecution said he did for the reasons they said he did it, or they believe he might have acted in self defense or not been of sound mind, then the finding must be not guilty.

I do not believe that NJ has attempted manslaughter, I believe the charge would be aggravated assault, but I am not an attorney in the state of NJ.

Thanks for clarifying this.

FYI… the attorney making this whole “they will downgrade it to attempted manslaughter “ argument is Andrew Branca, and he has been following the Barisone trial on his YouTube channel “The law of self defense” and he and other defense attorneys seem to want to pick apart what Bilinkas is doing, in real time.

I get the sense Andrew Branca is just trying to hock a book or something…

He’s probably talking about lesser included offenses which I posted about before but discovered they didn’t apply.

[BrendaJane]

next to the Open Trailer and The Blue Saddle?

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Knights_Mom

He’s probably talking about lesser included offenses which I posted about before but discovered they didn’t apply.

I missed your earlier post.

Why don’t they apply to this case? Is it because the prosecution didn’t charge it that way?

[RegentLion]

Crossed my mind.

[DownYonder]

@Knights_Mom

But you can’t retreat if you get jumped and pummeled to the ground.

Honestly, the more of the testimony I watch and read about, the more I think that MB would have been killed if the gunshots hadn’t hit LK. I think they intended to kill him and run with the story that he came at them with the gun and “accidentally” shot himself during a struggle with hero RG.

[KarenK]

Liars eventually get caught…it’s just a matter of time that LK & RG’s crash & burn.

[Knights_Mom]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@Knights_Mom

He’s probably talking about lesser included offenses which I posted about before but discovered they didn’t apply.

I missed your earlier post.

Why don’t they apply to this case? Is it because the prosecution didn’t charge it that way?

NJ Law

[MHM]

Just out of curiosity, I’m wondering how many people they have watching the live stream on this case compared to a typical case in this court.

Do they have twice as many people watching online as usual? 20x? 200x? 2000x? And how might those numbers affect the way things go in the courtroom?

[IPEsq]

I don’t practice criminal law, but in my area of civil law, you must plead your affirmative defenses at the outset. You are barred if you try to bring them later. But an affirmative defense is as stated above, even if everything alleged by the other side is true, I still win the case because of ABC affirmative defenses. But it is not by itself an admission that any of the allegations are true.

I took a look at the Nj code, and “no person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of such offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the innocence of the defendant is assumed.” That section “does not require the disproof of an affirmative defense unless and until there is evidence supporting such defense.” And it doesn’t apply to any defense requiring the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence.

Affirmative defenses like insanity are classified as such because it requires a finding of fact that is not an element of the offense. That is why it must be pled early, to give sufficient notice. Also in NJ the insanity defense must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence.

It appears to me that self defense is a regular (not affirmative) defense. The section is complicated on what might satisfy in what scenario.

[Knights_Mom]

So is everyone ready to take their pop quiz?

[soloudinhere]

The next available bar exam date in my state is July 2022, who’s ready?!

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Seriously- thank you to the various lawyers and other knowledgeable professionals weighing in on this thread. It’s really helpful and interesting!

[Scribbler]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@soloudinhere

The finding must always be in favor of the defendant if there is reasonable doubt that the defendant either committed the act in question to the standard required (eg attempted murder is a different standard than aggravated assault) OR if the defendant would be criminally culpable if there is a mitigating standard such as self defense.

If they doubt that the defendant did what the prosecution said he did for the reasons they said he did it, or they believe he might have acted in self defense or not been of sound mind, then the finding must be not guilty.

I do not believe that NJ has attempted manslaughter, I believe the charge would be aggravated assault, but I am not an attorney in the state of NJ.

Thanks for clarifying this.

FYI… the attorney making this whole “they will downgrade it to attempted manslaughter “ argument is Andrew Branca, and he has been following the Barisone trial on his YouTube channel “The law of self defense” and he and other defense attorneys seem to want to pick apart what Bilinkas is doing, in real time.

I get the sense Andrew Branca is just trying to hock a book or something…

I Googled Branca. Yes he’s an author and a specialist in self defense law and his website promotes carrying a gun so you are safe, and knowing the law to avoid getting arrested for murder. Obviously concealed carry, self defense, etc is a huge political hot topic in the USA and it sounds like he has a niche speciality. And a book.

I think a lawyer commenting on cases in the news or public issues can have useful things to add, but it’s important to realize that they are not in that court room, they may not have researched the specific laws and terms in that jurisdiction, and they are allowed a fair leeway for making errors without impinging their legal standing. They are allowed to be public commentators. It’s not unusual for a crusading or special interest lawyer to do interviews or commentary on all kinds of cases from their specific perspective. Human rights, domestic abuse, racism, constitutional, animal rights, civil liberties, medical intervention, etc etc, there are lawyers in all these fields that will comment at the drop of a hat on cases they aren’t involved in. It’s often very useful perspective but needs to be taken with a grain of salt as self promoting.

[Angela_Freda]

JK didn’t testify for the Prosecution.
Why not? Can he decide not to? Is it a given that it was the choice of the prosecution to not use him? Why might that be?

Would or could the Defense call him?