Court date for Michael Barisone?

[Graymaresrule]

Thanks

[trubandloki]

Another thank you for the amazing recap!

@vxf111

The parties submitted a confidentiality order for the court to enter, which would govern how discovery was used in the case.

What does this mean? Is this something about not talking about stuff or does it mean something else?

[vxf111]

Not sharing materials outside the case, etc.

[Angela_Freda]

Frankly so much time and drama has passed, I need a timeline of all of it cause I’m a little lost wrt who said what, when, and statute of limitations.

[cutter99]

Just a suggestion.

Let’s not antagonize ANYONE.

Let’s hope that they have come to the conclusion that arguing here, misconstruing other people’s posts, making threats, as well as stating out and out lies as facts, is not to their benefit in any way.

Let’s be bigger people. Let’s carry on as though they were never here.

Just a suggestion.

[3PonyFarm]

Thank you for the recap!

With some states reporting Covid cases rising again, do you think trials could possibly be put on hold again or do you think they would continue with the safety measures already in place (masks, partitions and such)?

[vxf111]

It does not feel like we’re going back in NJ. It feels like we’re moving forward. That’s how it feels to me.

[FitzE]

Thanks for that incredible break down and explanation.

One question: the civil ct delayed depositions of the parties. Do you think they did so in response to the prosecution’s (in the criminal case) noting the concerns you noted about the civil case getting ahead of the criminal case?

It seems to me that it shouldn’t matter if everyone is honest. If you don’t change your story then a deposition in a civil case won’t be an impeachment threat in the criminal case.

[LilRanger]

I suspect courts will be loathe to shut down so hard again. They will likely continue with online/video hearings and limit in person to those that require with precautions.

Just my opinion.

[Knights_Mom]

Please note that in civil cases there is no Prosecution. There is a Plaintiff. Criminal proceedings use a Prosecutor/District Atty

[vxf111]

I think it was a very reasonable decision. MB was particularly at risk of self incriminating if he had to be deposed in the civil case before his criminal trial. He’s got major stakes in the criminal case, he should not have to worry that if he says something in the civil case it will come back to haunt him in the criminal case. Also there are really thorny issues with the cross claims. Technically the entities are pointing fingers at each other and him. There’s some incentive for their testimony to make him look bad. And I don’t think any judge wants to let his civil case harm an ongoing criminal case. If there’s a risk of that happening, why not stay the civil case? There’s little harm to a stay.

[FitzE]

That cleared it right up, thank you! That all makes abundant sense.

[FitzE]

I tried to make that clear in my question but sorry if it wasn’t.

[MHM]

Omg.

The movie My Cousin Vinny just started on a network called Pop, which is channel 175 on Spectrum cable.

[Knights_Mom]

I agree. It doesn’t make any sort of sense to hold the Civil case first. Literally any number of things can happen in the Criminal case which can completely affect the Civil case.

[Fiesta01]

@vxf111

The prosecution did not “want to delay any depositions in the civil trial” so much as the prosecution wanted to resist having to turn over its documents and, in the context of that, pointed out why allowing the civil case to get out ahead of the criminal case could harm the criminal case.

But if the whole point of the justice system is to find the truth, as long as the testimony in a civil case is true (and I guess we have to assume that it is since it will be given under oath), how could that hurt the prosecution’s case? Do they not want to know all aspects of the case in order to ensure that justice is actually done, or does the prosecution just want a “win” at all costs?

(Sorry for my naiveté and thank you, vxf111, for the time you’re taking to explain all of this).

[vxf111]

Letting the civil case get out ahead of the criminal case could create a whole bunch of sideshow issues that get in the way of the jury finding the truth. Go look at the thread about MB’s 1983 case which is largely rampant speculation to see why. Posters have taken his allegations (just HIS allegations) and run with them to concoct all kinds of conspiracy theories and wild explanations. All it takes is a little kernel of something to get lay people off on a tangent and that’s true of juries too.

The prosecution wants a just outcome but if they have evidence that proves MB’s guilt, they don’t want him to be acquitted because one of the civil cases created a bunch of conflict/inconsistency and made it appear that there might be reasonable doubt where there actually should be none.

Given that they don’t control LK and wouldn’t be at the deposition, a lot could happen there to taint her as a witness for the criminal trial. Things that make her look not credible but have nothing to do with the actual substance of her testimony. Let’s say SGF’s attorney does a lot of getting in her face and slamming his/her fist on the table and LK’s lawyer doesn’t defend her well so she gives bad answers because she just wants to get the depo over. Let’s say she had a bad nights sleep before the depo and her memory is poor so she gives bad answers. That happens too. Let’s say they ask her about random stuff she’s not prepared to address and she gets details wrong. None of that goes to the substance of her testimony but all of it could happen and it creates an opening for MB to use that at trial to make her look like a bad witness. Which has nothing to do with getting to the truth. That wouldn’t help the prosecution get to the truth. Yet things like that happen in depositions.

It’s not so much that the prosecution doesn’t want her to give a deposition ever… they just want to do their trial first without having to worry about what everyone else is doing on their own that will add complication/surprise to the criminal trial. It’s not that know she’s got some big fault and they’re trying to hide it— they just don’t want to have a bunch of people who aren’t the ones trying the criminal case doing things without the prosecution involved that could impact the prosecution.

FWIW if the prosecution has evidence that tends to show MB’s innocence or evidence showing a witness they call lacks credibility… they must turn it over to the defense before trial. So it’s not like they can hide this evidence from MB in the criminal case. But that’s different than a bunch of people taking depositions and creating who knows what sideshow issues that MB tries to introduce at the criminal trial to shift focus away from other issues.

[MorganSercu]

@vxf111

Go look at the thread about MB’s 1983 case which is largely rampant speculation to see why.

Clearly I missed something. Can you point me in the right direction, please?

[vxf111]

It’s in the dressage forum. It’s got everything from a suspicion that LK’s father is in cahoots with the local police to speculation about police bias due to sex/gender and everything in between.

[Angela_Freda]

I think “1983” is a typo?
@vxf111