Not that I recall.
I will add that this is all completely unfamiliar territory to me, so I’m not going to promise that I caught every single thing. Lol.
And you’re welcome. 
9 Likes
I believe he also said he wanted to exclude (unrelated?) prior acts/behavior by the victims… but I was multitasking.
Yes 12 jurors plus 4 alternates… also discussion of seating jurors and trial potentially going over 3 weeks into 4 and Spring Break/Easter.
Was actually more interesting and revealing than I imagined.
Barisone “welcomes media in the courtroom”…
10 Likes
I think you’re right.
And yes, it was interesting to hear about the logistics of the scheduling regarding the upcoming Easter holiday, and the fact that the judge did not want to scare off the potential jurors by telling them the trial could take an extremely long time. Who knew?
5 Likes
What was the judge’s response to the request to exclude texts and previous behavior?
1 Like
It sounded like the judge agreed that the texts could be considered on a case-by-case basis as needed. I don’t remember if he said anything specific about the previous behavior.
4 Likes
Will be interesting to see if they allow the previous behavior testimony, considering many trials you can’t even bring up if the defendant has a previous criminal conviction or charges that are related to the current charges.
Of course I know nothing of NJ law so maybe that isn’t the case there.
With regards to the texts/prior acts, Bilinkis said he received the motion this morning and will be reviewing and preparing a response that he will try to have ready for when they meet again on Wednesday. Prosecution stated that they wanted ‘to have this decided’ before they went to trial to avoid any questions about said texts during cross.
To me it sounded like the Judge wasn’t giving an opinion either way at this point.
11 Likes
The prior bad acts exclusion isn’t absolute.
The prevailing theory is that a prior bad act is prejudicial. But if it’s relevant, and the evidentiary value exceeds the prejudicial nature of the evidence, prior bad acts can be admitted.
This happens all the time. A man says he’s never laid a finger on a woman and a prior girlfriend and a police report are produced to rebut that testimony.
That’s why each text would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Those that don’t relate to interactions with the defendant will probably be excluded but the victim’a statements about or towards the defendant even if they’re to a third party have a strong degree of relevancy. Even more so if that third party relayed those statements to defendant and therefore the text message is corroborating.
Again, only my opinion.
21 Likes
There was an extensive discussion previously of whether the charge could be downgraded in the trial to “a lesser included charge” (such as manslaughter). I thought the outcome of that discussion was that if prosecution wanted the option of charging manslaughter or assault, they would have had to have charged it already.
Why are you saying a “heat of passion” 2nd degree manslaughter charge is relevant for this case?
To the extent that the social media postings are relevant to establish a timeline, that would only involve postings after July, 2019, correct?
1 Like
With absolutely no legal knowledge or experience in the field, I predict that the judge may be tempted to tear his hair out repeatedly in the next month or so. Maybe he should borrow one of the old white wigs from the British judges.
16 Likes
yeah I know all about it, that’s why I’m curious. I have seen plenty of cases of murderers, rapists or abusers have their previous charges excluded from court when they seem like they are entirely relevant, but then they are excluded. It’s enraging when that happens, never understood it.
4 Likes
How can it be heat of passion and self defense and insanity?
4 Likes
He will decide by Wednesday.
1 Like
Would the jury hear the texts before they were deemed disallowed.
1 Like
No. If the judge excludes them they are totally excluded.
I think they try to prevent that stuff from being heard first, because as one judge put it…once I see it, I can’t unsee it.
4 Likes
It can’t be, because the heat of passion is related to manslaughter, which this defendant isn’t charged with.
He could, however, be charged with said attempted manslaughter if he is found not guilty of attempted murder.
Double jeopardy doesn’t attach. It’s a different charge.
9 Likes
Oh, man. Then would he have to sit in jail for another 2 1/2 years waiting for that case to come to trial?
2 Likes
Wait.
I am confused.
If this trial finishes and he is found not guilty of attempted murder the state can turn around and charge him with the lesser offence of attempted manslaughter and have a whole new trial?
4 Likes
I think NJ is one of those states that charges can only be downgraded with a plea bargain which isn’t happening here or if the charge includes lesser included aspects of the initial charge. I don’t remember exactly what I wrote to explain this but if memory serves me right in this case they can’t.
4 Likes
