But the true question is: Why did he make that choice? If he felt safer in jail than he would have been “out there” where they were, then that would be a somewhat rational choice considering the circumstances.
It never came down to “his making a choice to stay” because the trial took place and he was acquitted! We have never been told why he would have wanted to stay if the quick trial release date came and went.
I’m not saying it wasn’t the right decision, but it’s disingenuous to now moan about how long he’s gone without mental health treatment when he could have been out and working on that privately.
That 30 days is from date of verdict. My understanding from what I read in NJ case law last week, is that hearing has to happen, if for no other reason to determine if the patient is cooperating and to lay down a schedule for future hearings.
? Did he not decline release when it was offered pre trial? The judge noted it was an unusual request. Did that not happen?
This is the release I was discussing. Of course he hasn’t been offered release in the last week. He’s being transferred to a mh facility.
My understanding was if the trial had been delayed, a mandatory release date would kick in and MB was choosing to decline that future release date. But the trial went forward and here we are.
The “release” was never offered. Taylor was speaking of the urgency of the trial moving foward before the quick trial date expired. Bilinkas commented if that date came, Barisone wanted to remain in jail. Taylor said he’d never heard of such a request and didn’t know if he could comply but would discuss that when the time came if necessary,
Want to know the reason he would have declined? His concern was if he was released, his trial date would be pushed further and further out. He wanted the trial to proceed as quickly as possible. Thankfully, he rejected the plea deal and the trial was held.