What is the “Law and Order” meaning of self defense?
What are the other meanings?
Also, Bilinkas responded to the judge by saying that Barisone, in his delusional state perceived he needed to shoot in self defense, he didn’t assert that an outside reasonable person would have thought it necessary.
If it’s a trial by jury then the jury’s opinion really matters.
In a trial or hearing presided over by only a judge, very often the process is the judge goes away, does some research and presents a written decision at a later date. This is to ensure the judge is absolutely right in points of law and has looked at precedent. The ideal is decision that can’t be appealed. Judges are not expected to have every possible point of law on all topics in eidetic memory.
I know someone who is essentially a judge in a tribunal system here that is part of the legal system. They say very often a lawyer speaking in a tribunal hearing will make errors about the law or its interpretation that they will only catch when they go to research themselves.
That is why being a law clerk for a Supreme Court judge is such a good apprenticeship for law students. They’d be doing a lot of raw research on important issues for the judge to make a reasoned decision.
It’s not Judge Judy!
It’s the jury’s decision on the facts of the case that matters for the verdict, but the judge is responsible for instructing the jury on the legal criteria that need to be met for the defense to establish “not guilty by reason of insanity” or “not guilty by reason of self defense”.
The members of the jury don’t get to make up their own opinions on what “insanity” means in this context.
True. The judge will likely be sure to have all the relevant points that are anticipated researched in advance, and then look up points as the trial continues. It’s not just the absolute letter of the law, but also precedents and how they were applied in the past.
So, did you watch the hearing?
I’d like to point out, that Vertetis was awarded a new trial by the appeals court because the judge, Judge Taylor, improperly instructed the jury about how the law in NJ works regarding self defense. I would certainly hope he has learned from his mistakes since then and that we can expect him to not subject MB to such injustices.
As far as the hearing, well, I’m sad I missed it and won’t be able to comment further. I was unable to listen because my DH’s ex-wife had named him her next of kin during her psych hold in the ER. The story involves: months of audio and video recordings, murder plots, and 911 calls. Fortunately the police were very astute and intervened for the safety of all involved.
No, I didn’t watch the hearing.
I read the Jaffer article in the OP, which has direct quotes from Bilinkas.
I know what the attorney said. What I was describing was the legal standard. It actually doesn’t really matter whether the accused thought it was reasonable, which is exactly what he was saying. In the context of a diminished capacity defense, the capacity of the person accused to determine right from wrong is in question (in a M’Naughten state, which NJ is.) For self defense, the burden of proof is on the defendant to introduce evidence that they acted as any average reasonable person would when presented the same circumstances. It is then on the prosecution to counter that claim and disprove.
By “Law and Order” I meant that people seem only familiar with the black and white as it is presented on legal dramas such as Law and Order. What fits into a 48-minute tv series is not nearly the same as the various nuances of law in actual practice.
There are in fact several defenses that relate to self-defense. The standards are different, for example, if the accused was in his own home at the time, depending on the state. There are multiple findings of fact to self defense beyond simply whether the defendants use of force was reasonable, such as the duty to retreat.
I really should stop reading these threads.
I agree with the last part- in New Jersey there is a duty to retreat, but it does not apply in one’s own home (castle doctrine), and that’s where Stevens was overturned in the Vertetis case. He instructed the jury that Vertetis had a duty to retreat, when in actuality she didn’t because she was in her own home. BTW, there was no second trial; she then accepted a plea deal.
I disagree with your interpretation of Bilinkas’s statement, but that’s cool.
I, for one, cannot wait for this trial to unfold so that the years of cat fighting and obvious side-taking can end. Many here (whether they post or like posts) clearly believe that LK is the sole reason Barisone is in jail and that he bears no fault for his actions. Others believe that while she may perhaps be a raging psychopath, that doesn’t mean he alone didn’t put himself in the position he is in. It’s gotten pretty ugly at times - even towards people who say reasonable things. At last, the facts of the court will give us our answers.
The facts as we know them now are: Barisone shot LK. He is set to face trial because he declined a plea bargain that would have shaved many years off of the sentence he will serve if convicted. Clearly his defense counsel believes this is a good plan. Whether they are right will play out in court. And yes, the jury will follow the direction of the judge on what they can consider or not (although having been on a jury in a trial for a near-fatal shooting, I will tell you that some jurors take that more seriously than others.)
I’m personally looking forward to the facts being laid bare once and for all and for the endless speculation and infighting to end here.
Two words: OJ Simpson.
Trials really only decide basic legal questions.
Rest assured, cats will keep fighting.
Well, fair enough. Justice is not always served. Cats will fight whether or not the truth is laid bare amd whether or not justice is served. There’s also that whole sticky issue of what Americans believe is “truth” these days. I would say, though, that while outliers do exist, if I want to believe in our democracy then I have to believe that the system works and truth is found amd justice is served more often than it is not.
Not an accurate statement.
He is set to face trial because the state has leveled charges against him and he is exercising his right to a trial by jury. The defendant exercising his rights is not a punitive act. A plea bargain is not just about ending a trial and making it easier for everybody. That’s not the defendant’s burden.
We do not know the terms of the plea bargain beyond what was shared with the media. A plea bargain is not final until the defendant admits to the required charges in open court and allocutes to his actions. A prosecutor does not decide a sentence; they can make a recommendation that is often respected but doesn’t have to be as the court is ostensibly acting in society’s interest.
Okay, really have to stop reading these threads.
I don’t disagree with the statement.
However, I think the word “speedy” is usually included in the expectation for a trial by jury. More than two and a half years of sitting in jail waiting around does not seem very speedy to me, although of course there were extenuating circumstances with the pandemic. This is probably not even that unusual, but it’s still a bit of an eye-opener.
I don’t disagree, however, there is not much willingness to expedite a trial that could land someone in prison for a very long time if there is no precedent that all the legal standards can be met virtually. There’s a substantial public interest in not holding the in-person trial.
No real examples exist in history so we will just have to see it play out. In either case it would be very unusual for the accused to not receive credit for incarceration awaiting trial.
Yes, to everything you have written.
A quick search of the case law suggests that Bilinkas’ statement concurs with the likely case he cited, State v. Handy 215 N.J.Super. 334, 73 A.3d 421 (2013) which held that an insanity defense and an affirmative defense such as self defense must be raised in a unitary trial where previously they had been bifurcated, where the issue of insanity is tried first and, if unsuccessful, then the self defense claim could be raised.
“In a case such as this in which the defendant relies on self-defense, most of the evidence about the defendant’s delusions would be admissible to rebut the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief concerning the use of deadly force. Because the State must also present evidence of mental status to prove intent, offering only part of that evidence would provide the jury with a less-than-complete and inaccurate record.”
Thus Bilinkas is correct that since the evidence on the insanity claim is pertinent to the claim of self defense, both can and should be tried at the same time.
Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the law. Are jurors typically informed if a plea deal was offered but denied by the defendant?
Federal rules (both criminal procedure and rules of evidence) do not allow the admission of evidence relating to a guilty plea or plea of nolo contendre (“no contest”), nor any statements made in connection with such pleas or offers, with some exceptions. For example these statements, if they were made in the presence of counsel and under oath, can be admitted in a perjury action. But generally no, if the defendant does not plead guilty, there is nothing to be introduced at trial because the defendant has asserted his innocence regardless of any statements made.
I’m not a lawyer in NJ, just for the record. Nothing I say should be construed as legal advice.
Thank you for your reply. That makes sense.
I agree with you that he has every right to reject the plea deal and go through with the trial, and has a right to a vigorous defense.
A couple of posters were just pointing out that they don’t feel sorry for him for “having to relive his childhood trauma” in the trial, since he is the one person who could have avoided the trial taking place.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
