Barisone Trial This Month

[RND]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m not convinced of Eggbutt’s prediction that huge amounts of SM posts are going to be introduced.

The judge is predicting three weeks or a bit more, which doesn’t sound atypical for a trial on attempted murder (2 counts), plus gun charges.

TBH, I thought 3 weeks sounded pretty short, but I’ve never been on a jury.

I missed where anyone predicted that a huge number of social media posts will be introduced, but the fact is we have no idea how many (or if any) will be presented. And even if it’s only a few, I think we can be sure they will be among the craziest of all the available posts. My real point is that I agree with whoever made the comment about the jury possibly wishing they had not been the ones picked. I certainly wouldn’t want to be on this jury.

I feel like it was pretty ballsy of the defense to refuse the plea deal, and then plead insanity/self defense. If MB’s lawyer doesn’t have a huge bombshell up his sleeve that will shock us all and get MB off, I wonder if the verdict is guilty if it is possible that there could be an appeal based on poor performance of his lawyer in this trial (I know there is a more technical name for this but I can’t think of it)?

[SillyHorse]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@SillyHorse

Who said it was worse?

Please look at the post I was replying to for your answer.

I did, and that’s why I asked, and ask again, who said it was worse?

[LilRanger]

Ineffective assistance of counsel is what you were thinking of. Ultimately it’s the defendants choice whether to accept a plea. I say that knowing many defendants rely on their attorney to guide them, so it’s not a black and white issue.
I don’t think that a defense strategy that’s effectively countered by the prosecution supports a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. I’m sure there will be other, better, issues preserved for appeal.

Edited to add that we don’t know what discussions were about the plea. Could be bilinkas tried hard to get MB to take it, and this is the only defense they could ethically affirm. Could be they all agreed no plea would be justice. Could be things none of us could have guessed that went on before he declined. But it’s his right to have a trial, and he’s getting it.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

TBH, I thought 3 weeks sounded pretty short, but I’ve never been on a jury.

Did I read the above posts wrong? I read that each lawyer said their side was going to take two weeks and then the judge said to go with three weeks as a time to tell the jury.

So even the lawyers think it will be more than three weeks. So maybe not as straight foward and simple as you think it is.

[LilRanger]

15 witnesses is a lot of witnesses.

I read it is 5 days for the prosecutions side, 14 for the defense based on number of witnesses. So 3 weeks total. That’s a long trial.

[MHM]

@LilRanger

I say that knowing many defendants rely on their attorney to guide them, so it’s not a black and white issue.

Not directly related to the question of the plea bargain, but…

When the subject came up this morning of the cameras in the courtroom for 48 Hours, MB said that he would leave it up to his lawyer’s discretion, and the judge told him that it was absolutely not the decision of his lawyer. It was MB‘s decision, since accepting it would mean he could not use it as grounds for appeal down the road, or words to that effect.

[3PonyFarm]

How many peremptory challenges does each side get? I’m curious what things they might look for in rejecting a juror? Involvement in horses, possibly landlords or those with law enforcement?

[MHM]

@3PonyFarm

I’m curious what things they might look for in rejecting a juror? Involvement in horses…?

I can see it now.

“Are you familiar with a publication called The Chronicle of the Horse? Have you ever read or posted on their community forums??”

[Jealoushe]

I think it’s more along the lines of, who believes in stand your ground, self defense, gun rights, mental health issues…etc

[eggbutt]

@eggbutt

@FitzE

It is very strange, indeed. I’ve never witnessed anything like it. But, the simple fact that what one might call ‘both sides’ had the same reaction immediately after the shooting (scrub or preserve SM posts) is telling. You are 100% correct that this is not the normal, healthy reaction of a victim’s family or people who know/know of the victim.

It has become apparent that this victim was notorious and, sadly, it appears, widely despised for a long time, across many states, among a wide range of people, and had left a trail of destruction, arrests, law suits, and scorching on-line and IRL flame wars in her wake. The outrageous behaviour, some of which is discussed above, FAR preceded this incident.

@CurrentlyHorseless

For people to react to the news that a fellow equestrian has been shot (on the day of the shooting it was by no means clear she was going to survive) by immediately scouring the Internet for the victim’s SM posts and screenshotting everything they can find because they’re panicked that the shooting victim may “scrub” her SM posts strikes me as very strange behavior.

You are half right in this observation. What you are missing is that people close to her had the exact same impulse. If an average person is shot, the family scrubbing social media and people trying to preserve it, doesn’t ever happen. The very fact that that activity was one of the first things that both ‘sides’ -her family/friends/supporters and her detractors/victims - thought to do while she fought for life in a hospital is, frankly, chilling.

And I find it really sad. It’s sad that that is/was true for everyone on whom this incident had an impact. I genuinely feel that way. If something like this happened to me and that was everyone’s big takeaway from my life thus far, I would be gutted.

I am truly speechless at the truth of this post. After 2 1/2 years, this one posts sums it all up.

Looks like the Kanarek’s worst fears may be eliminated if the judge rules that some of LK’s media presence might be excluded from the trial. At least I would assume they would be worst fears.

I expect IF Shellhorn’s list is excluded in its entirety that Bilinkas will still have plenty to work with in the trial. Regardless of the outcome of the trial, 48 Hours will more than likely have access to the information Schellhorn wants excluded. Hmmmm.

[Jealoushe]

@eggbutt

48 Hours will more than likely have access to the information Schellhorn wants excluded. Hmmmm

48HRS aren’t the judge and jury though, are they.

[trubandloki]

@Jealoushe

@eggbutt

48 Hours will more than likely have access to the information Schellhorn wants excluded. Hmmmm

48HRS aren’t the judge and jury though, are they.

I think you need to read that entire post to get the point being made about 48 hours having access to all the information that might not be able to be presented in the trial.

The way I read the post the point being made is that even if the prosecution does not allow some things that LK does not want out there into the trial, that stuff might still get out there because there are other sources that have it too.

[eggbutt]

@MHM

@LilRanger

I say that knowing many defendants rely on their attorney to guide them, so it’s not a black and white issue.

Not directly related to the question of the plea bargain, but…

When the subject came up this morning of the cameras in the courtroom for 48 Hours, MB said that he would leave it up to his lawyer’s discretion, and the judge told him that it was absolutely not the decision of his lawyer. It was MB‘s decision, since accepting it would mean he could not use it as grounds for appeal down the road, or words to that effect.

I think you may have misunderstood what the conversation between Judge Taylor and Barisone was - the judge asked Barisone if the presence of the media would influence his decision to testify. Barisone said he would rely on Bilinkas’ advice and the Judge reminded Barisone that it is his decision alone, whether to testify or not. That’s when Barisone said he welcomes the media!

[MHM]

@Jealoushe

I think it’s more along the lines of, who believes in stand your ground, self defense, gun rights, mental health issues…etc

When I was called for jury duty some years back, they asked me if I would be able to make a decision based strictly on statements from the parties involved with no corroborating evidence. I said no, and I think that is probably why I was not picked to be on that jury.

Frankly, I was surprised at how many potential jurors said they would be able to reach a decision that way.

[LilRanger]

I got you, thanks, yes I thought it was a discussion of the initial plea offer being declined. My bad.

[eggbutt]

@Jealoushe

@eggbutt

48 Hours will more than likely have access to the information Schellhorn wants excluded. Hmmmm

48HRS aren’t the judge and jury though, are they.

There’s nothing more powerful than public opinion. 48 Hours will definitely influence what the public thinks, don’t you agree?

[MHM]

Well, yes, under the general heading of having the news cameras there.

[3PonyFarm]

I would think anyone would want the advice of their attorney, even if it is their decision ultimately.

[eggbutt]

No problem. It takes practice listening to every word intently during these hearings.

[trubandloki]

@eggbutt

No problem. It takes practice listening to every word intently during these hearings.

I think it also involves some knowledge of what is likely going on too, to be able to get the details of what is going on while you listen.

I am very thankful that so many people are able to listen and share.

@3PonyFarm

I would think anyone would want the advice of their attorney, even if it is their decision ultimately.

I agree. I would think anyone would discuss these types of choices with their attorney.