Correct, I’m merely attempting to correct the impression that the defendant has some sort of obligation to take away the burden of trial or that a defendant who doesn’t want to testify to particular actions or events should take a plea deal to avoid it.
Accepting a plea deal is admitting you are guilty of a crime. You are required to allocute in open court to your actions and enter into the record that you did them, which is also admissible in a civil suit for the same. Remember also that a trial is not a yes-or-no thing necessarily. A jury can find the defendant not guilty on the presented charge but feel they meet the standard of a lesser charge. That is the power of doubt.
But I think affirmative defenses like insanity and self defense are more “yes-or-no” than other defenses, since he’s affirming that he did the shooting. On the insanity defense, the defense either does or doesn’t meet its burden of proof that he was legally insane. If they don’t meet the standard of legal insanity and fall back on self defense, then the defense either does or doesn’t meet the burden of proof that a reasonable person would have thought their life was in danger with no option to retreat.
I understand a defense lawyer putting in the self defense plea as a back up to the insanity plea, but to me the probability of succeeding with self defense seems awfully low. I think the whole thing will hinge on the insanity defense.
Regarding the second, if indeed MB’s latent issues caused him to react the way that he did, and fire a gun at LK, then yes, they are essential to the issues at hand. So, while it’s being stated that he wouldn’t have to relive them had he not fired the gun, if the reason he felt compelled to fire that gun is the “childhood issues”, you aren’t going to get ahead of that. That is the impetus.
From everything that has been stated here over several threads, and the behavior of LK when she parachutes in here, personally, I can see where things could have escalated, and been just unbelievable. As I’ve stated here before, there shouldn’t ever be an excuse for shooting another human being, but I understand how it could happen.
He’s entitled to the best defense he can get. I have no problem with Bilinkas claiming childhood trauma played a role, even if the trauma was non existent or exaggerated. The Vertetis case was also Bilinkas as defense attorney and Stevens as judge. There are many similarities in Bilinkas’s strategy in the two cases, especially in attempting to blame the victim and in accusing the police of incompetence.
Actually, I don’t blame Bilinkas for attempting to blame the victim in the trial, because he apparently thinks that’s his client’s best defense, and it’s his obligation to provide the best defense he can.
Based on what has been posted on COTH, mostly the posts of IM, I think I have a pretty good idea of what happened that first week of August, so my remaining curiosity is not about the historical events.
What I’ll be interested in seeing “play out” is
Will Bilinkas’s attempt to blame the victim work, or backfire?
Having rolled the dice on an insanity defense, will that work or fail?
I disagree. Only about 30 cases per year successfully claim not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. Often doing so isn’t really great unless someone is truly insane, In which case they often get committed to a facility for longer than their prison term would have been.
I know there are people reading this who aren’t participating in the thread so I’m avoiding characterizing what I believe the attorneys are doing or attempting to do. It’s supposition on my part.
I wonder if Nancy Jaffer is planning to give daily courtroom updates, a la Dominick Dunne.
How strongly his defense council believes declining the plea bargain is not clear. Unless they feel strongly enough that they decline to continue to represent him, at the end of the day, it is MB’s decision to accept a plea deal and potentially a shorter sentence with no trial, or to continue to trial. We have no information about what actual evidence they may be planning to bring to support their defense.
I do think MB or his legal team must feel pretty strongly that they’ve got a shot at a much shorter sentence/time served/acquittal to turn down a plea deal that would have him 1/3 of the way through his sentence and out of county jail and into what has been stated a much different experience in state prison.
Also - I think we all need to accept that even with a trial, it is highly likely there are still going to be many unanswered questions.
Real trials are not like a TV show where you feel like all the questions get answered. I always roll my eyes at many of the legal shows/movies that have trials happening for a murder what seems like 2 days after the character gets arrested. While I’m not a lawyer, I’ve been around enough of them in my life (running joke in my family for a long time was my father’s side of the family was personally responsible for the overpopulation of lawyers in the US) to know that these cases take FOREVER to actually get to trial. While 2.5 years for MB is extra long, it had been 7 months before much of the court system got shut down for COVID, and he had not gone to trial yet.
As I stated, I do not think that anyone deserves to be shot, but from what little I’ve seen on here from LK, I can see where this could have escalated. And, if she did any of the rest of what has been alleged, she deserved anything else that MB wanted to throw at her, legally. It just a shame that there wasn’t a quick, clean legal solution. I cannot imagine having her at one’s place of business and home.
There was a reasonably quick (weeks not months), clean legal solution that was already in progress when Barisone started shooting. (According to IM, who I believe.)
It’s a shame Barisone sought instant gratification with a gun, rather than pursue the legal process put in place by his own lawyer. But perhaps he is not morally or legally responsible because he was insane at the time he obtained at the gun and at the time he attempted to kill two people.
Sometimes, when pressures become too much, weeks can sound like years, especially if the stress is pushing you to the edge. And no, I do not currently own a gun…
OK. If we’re talking about all murder or attempted murder cases, I agree that the insanity defense is riskier than self defense. However, if we’re talking about this particular case, I can see that the insanity defense might work. I just don’t see how self defense is going to work in these particular circumstances.
In my jurisdiction it’s quite common for trials to happen a couple of years after arrest. However, accused can get bail if they have surety, don’t pose a risk to themselves or community, aren’t considered likely to re offend, and aren’t a flight risk. We don’t have the predatory bail bondsman system that made NJ stop the bail concept. In our system Barisone would have been able to put up surety, either his or family or associates.
N.J. doesn’t use a monetary bail system, but they do release defendants prior to trial if the are not considered a risk to the community, themselves, or a flight risk. There was a hearing on that.
It works the same here as it does in the case where a defendant argues battered woman syndrome. That’s not a medical diagnosis or a legally recognized defense.
That said, a woman who has been abused for some period of time shoots her sleeping abuser. Is that self defense? It would depend on the circumstances surrounding her belief in her safety or future safety. By the law, someone who is asleep is not an immediate threat to your life. You can (in theory) walk out the door. But can you? Doubt is what’s required. Are there enough other facts to make a jury believe that said accused could be in enough persistent fear for her life that a sleeping victim could be a perceived threat? Are there enough facts that the jury could doubt that the accused could safely leave?
I’m purposefully not answering the questions. The intention is to think about the nuances.
Has there been a hearing on that since the arraignment? I honestly don’t remember. There was some discussion about it at the time re: his means to escape the jurisdiction if allowed to be released prior to trial and his threat to the community or lackthereof.
I would assume MB’s legal team could have filed for another hearing on pre-trial confinement, but I have vague recollection of something about that issue from last fall? maybe? that MB’s legal team told the court that he’d rather stay put until the trial. Maybe with the hope that if found guilty of a lesser charge he’d be sentenced to time served rather than have to go back to jail after the trial?
It is my understanding (from Wikipedia) that self defense as well as insanity are both affirmative defenses in which the burden of proof is on the defense to prove the circumstance of self defense or insanity.
Since the circumstances are: a 6’ 2” male athlete procured a gun and drove over to the victims’ residence and placed himself within 4 feet of LK (outdoors), with LK being a 5’ 2” female armed only with a cell phone, I just don’t see enough nuances to make a case for self defense.
He had the resources to decamp to his Florida barn, not to mention take out a restraining order.
