It’s lovely to have actual “conversations” isn’t it?
25 Likes
I was able to get some answers about how “intent” was either proven or disproven in criminal cases. This is regarding criminal cases in general, not the MB case.
A client who is a former prosecutor and now a criminal defense attorney explained that it goes beyond just a state of mind and involves proving that certain steps were taken to commit the crime (paraphrasing her words).
This is an area that had me stumped as I have no legal knowledge beyond some Grisham novels. Two of the things that stood out in her explanations that I would not have considered (again, this is in general-not this case) were abandonment and imperfect self defense. Anyone interested can google them as I am sure I would not explain them correctly.
One “defense” she ran into as a prosecutor was the “some other dude did it defense.” She had one case in which the defendant was puzzled as to why his DNA ended up at a crime scene, all over the weapon and how items from the victim’s house ended up at his house. He was convicted. She did add that she never encountered a criminal mastermind in her years as a prosecutor. 
Anyhow I am glad to have to have an explanation. It has also been very helpful to hear from those posters who are knowledgeable in these areas as well.
Criminal law and court procedure are very interesting!
3 Likes
Thank you for your explanation.
Intent is hard to prove. As a test, imagine what you yourself would have done were you MB in this case and intended to “off” somebody. Then imagine what you’d do if you wanted to accomplish something else - like verbally have it out - and say took a weapon just in case the boyfriend or dog or whomever might be a threat to your safety. Imagine different scenarios like heat of the moment, etc.
And that’s exactly why we’re hashing this about questioning this and that, imagining possibilities.
Remember the defense doesn’t have to prove any particular version of things but rather they have to create doubt for the prosecution’s version of things.
We here can only speculate. As much info as we’ve gotten, I’m sure there are relevant things we don’t know. Exact words said, the way it was said, body posture, etc conveys so much as to intent.
Again, using My Cousin Vinny take the statement by one of the defendants when the words “I shot the clerk*?*” became the affirmative statement “I shot the clerk” according to police testimony.
10 Likes
Thanks for explaining it further too! If I understood the person I was talking to, abandonment and imperfect self defense is generally used to reduce the charges against the person, not necessarily “sets them free”. Is this a correct interpretation of those terms?
I don’t know as I’m not a criminal trial defense lawyer nor am I versed in NJ law.
My state doesn’t use the 2 things you have mentioned that I’m aware of but my experience is not all inclusive. Although I worked arraignments for almost 2 years, I’ve never sat a Supreme Court criminal trial. Although for my competitive job testing I had to learn every statute in Criminal Law, Penal Law, Civil Practice, Domestic Relations Law, and the Family Court Act I haven’t heard of it.
But as pointed out previously, I’m just a clerk.
4 Likes
Sounds impressive to me! Thanks
2 Likes
I am laid up with an injury and am bored out of my mind. These threads are interesting!
7 Likes
This, exactly! ^^
1 Like
I love how this movie keeps popping up here for educational purposes. I may have to go back and watch the whole thing.
2 Likes
As someone who was raised in NJ just out of NYC the accents make me cringe.
4 Likes
Yeah, but it just may be the funniest movie in the history of the world.
7 Likes
Intent has to be proven through circumstantial evidence, because we’re not mindreaders and there’s no way to prove conclusively what was actually going through someone’s head at the time a crime was committed. So we look at external words/actions that we think reflect state of mind.
Let’s say I get arrested in the MOMA and I am charged with burglary (entering the museum with the intent to commit the crime of theft inside). The prosecution has to prove not only that I entered the museum but that I intended to steal once I got inside). I say “that’s not what I was doing in the MOMA. I was just in there to look at the art.”
How will the prosecution prove my intent to steal? How can they convince the jury that’s what was going through my mind at the time.
Let’s say it was midnight, well after the museum closed.
I was dressed all in black with a mask over my face.
I broke a window to get in.
I disabled the alarm in front of “The Dream” painting.
I had with me a bag large enough to conceal the painting.
I had taken the painting down off the wall.
And in the weeks before I was caught I had been googling fences and the value of the painting “The Dream.”
The night I broke in, I told my spouse “if tonight goes as planned, we’re going to be rich.”
Do you think these other pieces of evidence tend to show my state of mind was to steal? It’s all circumstantial evidence. It is not direct evidence of what was going through my head. But it does pretty effectively suggest what MIGHT have been going through my head. And that’s sufficient for the fact finder to decide I did have the intent to steal at the time I entered the MOMA.
17 Likes
This is right but it’s a bit of an oversimplification (which makes sense if she was trying to explain the concept to a non lawyer).
In a very simple way, there are many different states of mind. First degree homicide (or attempted homicide) requires the HIGHEST level of intent. You must purposefully or knowingly act to kill someone. If you have actual self defense, that’s a complete defense. It means that even though you had that state of mind, we don’t punish your action because you were defending your own life under circumstances where it was reasonable to believe your life was in imminent risk.
Imperfect self defense means you were defending yourself but in circumstances where even though you believed you life was at risk-- that actually wasn’t reasonable. You hear a knock at the door, it spooks you, you open it and shoot the person on the other side. It turns out to be your friendly neighbor asking to borrow a cup of sugar. Self defense doesn’t work here. Your life wasn’t actually at risk, and it probably wasn’t reasonable for you to think so-- but you also didn’t quite have the state of mind we associate with first degree murder. So your state of mind would be more aligned with manslaughter, which is still a crime but is generally punished to a lesser degree. That’s why it’s an imperfect defense. It doesn’t result in acquittal but, where proven, it means the prosecution can only prove a lesser charge,
10 Likes
Thank you, that makes a lot of sense!
1 Like
I assume MOMA is an art gallery acronym, right?
2 Likes
Museum of Modern Art
Sometimes MoMA instead of MOMA:
4 Likes
Yes, sorry. I have art on the brain RN
I took a few months away from COTH after some unpleasant interactions with one poster and being unsettled by evidence that someone had worked to figure out my IRL identity. I’ve been lurking a little in the last few days to figure out if I’m comfortable making a horse care post…
It’s so refreshing to see this thread and a conversation about the Barisone case that provides some new perspective and civil conversation. I appreciate the explanations of legal proceedings and strategies. That’s all I have to add. Carry on!
31 Likes
I believe that the individual in question is no longer posting, and in any case, is blocked from the CE section. Welcome back!
6 Likes
