Court date for Michael Barisone?

[Sdel]

From the letter filed by the prosecution in the civil trial……

“The SGF pleading explicitly states that upon receipt of the prosecutor’s file, at least one potential witness, L.K., will be subjected to civil depositions during the pendency of the criminal prosecution. Defendant-Movant’s brief at 4. Compelled disclosure of the entire file could result in witnesses’ memories or ability to recollect the incident being compromised – either intentionally or inadvertently – and would subject witnesses to undue and adverse impeachment in the criminal proceeding. “

Also….
“ Second, SGF seeks access to the social media posts. The MCPO would raise the same interests as outlined above.”

And….
“ Although these postings were allegedly public at one point, they are not any longer.”

SGF’s response was essentially too bad, so sad, we have the right to prosecute our civil case unhampered and if that was a problem then there were another 22 months before the civil case had to be filed and if LK had waited we wouldn’t be at this point before the criminal case had concluded.

[rothmpp]

I think this was addressed in one or more of the previous threads but since New Jersey is a one party consent state, could the recordings potentially be inadmissible if the people on the recording were not informed of the possibility of a recording device?

[MorganSercu]

I think the problem was she may have or was accused of recording conversations between MB and others to which she was NOT a party. Within his office space in the barn, perhaps? Or parties C & D were chatting and LK wasn’t a participant.

New Jersey’s wiretapping law is a “one-party consent” law. New Jersey makes it a crime to intercept or record an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents.

[FitzE]

There was something he said about her knowing the content of a call he had with his lawyer. Plus, if devices were on in the locker or elsewhere then LK and her BF were not around, that would violate the one-party consent.

[MorganSercu]

Then it’s illegal wiretapping and/or eavesdropping - correct?

[FitzE]

I believe so.

[LilRanger]

Sure, I agree it could suck for the State’s case, but that’s not to say SGF did that on purpose to mess with the criminal case. But I could be totally wrong.

That’s all.

[Scribbler]

Is it illegal, or just inadmissible in court?

Those are two different things. When it’s the police doing the eavesdropping, they amount to the same thing.

But is it illegal for a private citizen, to put up surveillance on someone else’s property? Or on a part of the property that they rent like a stall or tack locker? If they don’t intend to try to use them in court per se?

I have no idea.

[MorganSercu]

@Scribbler

When it’s the police doing the eavesdropping, they amount to the same thing.

The police are supposed to have permission to do it by a judge though.

[FitzE]

" New Jersey** makes it a crime to intercept or record an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents."

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-jersey/new-jersey-recording-law

When police do it they must get a warrant first or it’s also illegal and inadmissable.

[MHM]

@FitzE

" New Jersey** makes it a crime to intercept or record an in-person or telephone conversation unless one party to the conversation consents."

https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/new-jersey/new-jersey-recording-law

When police do it they must get a warrant first or it’s also illegal and inadmissable.

So does that mean LK could be arrested for it if the recordings show that’s what happened?

[Angela_Freda]

How about those recoding devices LK had around the house she and her bf were living in capturing what visitors to the house the day after shooting were up to?

[trubandloki]

@MHM

So does that mean LK could be arrested for it if the recordings show that’s what happened?

I would guess (and only guessing here) even if it was something arrest-able they would likely not do anything about it (considering the other circumstances).

[Knights_Mom]

Yes. It is illegal to record a conversation you are not a party to unless there is a warrant issued to do so. AND it opens you up to CIVIL LIABILITY as well.

Who knows, maybe civilly or criminally if you illegally wiretap or record you may also be subject to other things if the INTENT of recording could be proven to have been done in order to harass, intimidate or coerce a recorded party.

[Scribbler]

Thanks for clearing up the law on this.

I wouldn’t 100% believe anything that’s been said by LK about her surveillance.

[Angela_Freda]

I think you tagged the wrong person/comment.

[Scribbler]

Probably. I’m usually just dropping in a comment wherever and not tagging anyone particular

[Knights_Mom]

Poke poke poke poke poke

Oh, never mind LOL

[eggbutt]

I believe you have really hit on the crux of the situation. She doesn’t care about the Criminal case because she has no control over it. It’s all about the Civil case and cleaning up her persona so she can take everyone to the cleaners before the Criminal trial. What an interesting concept. Didn’t someone say very early on she was going to take everyone for everything they’d ever had? Was that the focus from the beginning? My, my, my.

[FitzE]

Do you think so? Honest question as I have no idea. But I was thinking that that crime was not just against MB, but all the other boarders who recorded as well. Would the state decline to prosecute a crime against innocent bystanders? I can see if it was just MB who was recorded, but I don’t think it was.