Yes, the $1M question of the last 2 years.
4 Likes
OMG Bilinkas is saying what he thinks LK is going to say and is arguing it as fact that it has been said. Judge says no she didnt say that!
This is wild
4 Likes
I know, right? What a bunch of crazy rich snobs we all are. When you’ve got too much time and money, you get into some weird things I guess?
6 Likes
darn the sound cut
2 Likes
Sidebar about legality of recordings:
Bilinkas says she said she put the recording device in her helmet in private locker–judge says she hasn’t said this yet, which is true, and Bilinkas says well she’s going to say it!
Then my audio cut out…
5 Likes
Ugh, time for barn chores… I’ll be back, and lost and a “big behind” 
So, you’re warned.
1 Like
That was some serious 
being argued. And the sound just came back on.
3 Likes
They want the recordings brought it in because they will show how she knew things from the recordings and used them to taunt MB and drive him wild.
Sound is back.
2 Likes
So it seems like the defense is getting ahead of himself. He knows she has lied, and anticipates her continuing to lie, and wants the recording to contradict that. He may be allowed to do that - but she hasn’t lied about the issue on the stand yet. The judge is pointing that out.
Had the defense elicited testimony that was specifically contradicted by the recording, it seems like the judge may have allowed that. But (and I don’t know what was on the specific recording) I think the defense put the cart before the horse a bit here.
Also, just generally, there are a lot of complicated rules surrounding when you can introduce evidence when its only value is to prove that a witness is lying. That is highly disfavored. I knew those rules well when I took the bar - less so now lol.
11 Likes
Re what I bolded; I’m actually really confused about this.
The judge is coaching Bilinkas on the best way to move forward and he won’t drop the illegal/legal thing about the recordings.
2 Likes
That’s a good explanation. Thanks for that.
3 Likes
The Judge says “Lawyer told her she could do it, so she can do it and it’s okay!”. In other words, no accountability for LK.
9 Likes
Judge says she can’t be prosecuted because a lawyer told her it was legal. She sought legal advice so cant be charged.
Judge asks if he wants to go down that road. He says no.
Judge keeps telling him its so far off the issue that its too confusing, he isnt allowing it.
Whether or not she illegally recorded him doesn’t actually matter for the issues being tried. It doesn’t go to whether he shot her; it doesn’t go to self-defense or insanity. She recorded him. The judge’s point is that how could it have mattered to MB whether the recording was illegal or not? Was it the fact that the recording was done illegally that pushed him over the edge? If it had been done legally would MB have said “oh, well that is fine then?” Judge says the fact that she recorded him secretly is relevant - but whether it is legal or illegal is not.
19 Likes
Of course! Honestly a lot of these issues would be well suited to a law school exam. They’re nuanced even with a legal education.
8 Likes
He may be, but it doesn’t matter, v that’s the defendant’s right, to not plea. Any judge who shows contempt for that choice should be removed, imo
13 Likes
It all boils down too - it doesn’t matter because of the insanity defense. It matters if it effected MB and whether it was legal or illegal does’t effect that.
He gave him a few ideas how to move forward with questioning, a lot of coaching.
3 Likes
Sidebar about legality of recordings, from when audio came back on:
Judge tells Bilinkas to focus on whether she lied to the police, not the legality of the recordings.
Bilinkas upset that prosecutor knows LK made illegal recordings but did not charge her. Judge says since she was relying on legal advice, right or wrong, she would not be prosecuted.
Judge is excluding it under 403 for being confusing and too far afield and a waste of the court’s time.
N.J.R.E. 403. Exclusion of Relevant Evidence on Grounds of Prejudice, Confusion, or Waste of Time
Except as otherwise provided by these rules or other law, the court may exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of:
(a) Undue prejudice, confusing the issues, or misleading the jury; or
(b) Undue delay, wasting time, or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence
And with that, I am probably out for a while, sadly…
11 Likes
I don’t disagree! Just speculating.
3 Likes
