That’s the issue. Her actions may give rise to offsetting damages owed to Barisone, but they’re not a defense against her claim against him for shooting her.
He has many defenses to chose from and I doubt she can prove that he shot her. He, on the other hand can put forth self defense or accidental discharge or even something else.
But it can be proven with absolute certainty including by her own words under sworn testimony in open court before Judge and jury and captured in the record either by recording or court stenographer that she had pursued a multi layered 54D chess course of action to destroy him and finish the bastard.
26 Likes
The prosecutor proved beyond a reasonable doubt that he shot her. Her private attorney only needs to prove that he shot her to the standard of “by a preponderance of the evidence”.
Self defense did not fly in the criminal trial. The defense did not even attempt to establish an accidental discharge theory.
Even if they did establish it was accidental discharge, he’s still
liable for her injuries if he brought the gun.
It doesn’t matter that she announced that she intended to “finish the bastard”, in the same way it doesn’t matter that MHG stated that she was going to “effing kill her”. What matters is what LK and MHG actually did.
LK made secret recordings of MBs conversations and posted weird provocative stuff on SM. I don’t think the monetary award to MB from LK for those things will be on the same order of magnitude as the award to her for having been shot. What is not clear is how the jury will break down the percent liability among the three defendants.
1 Like
{{{{{HUGS}}}}}} I am so very sorry
4 Likes
Somebody wasn’t paying attention to testimony about what the barn environment was like in the weeks and days leading up to the shooting.
35 Likes
I’m glad you agree that the deciding factor for the jury was that all the psychological experts testified to Michael’s fear of LK and her behavior as the source of his instability. The state expert specifically testified that fear was a reasonable response to her behavior, surely the jury felt that was significant too. And to top it off, it was behavior they listened to her admit she engaged in for the express purpose of damaging him and his business and acknowledge that she knew he was scared of her behavior. The jury had the option to side with the state. Most of the time they do. You really have to wonder why the jury was so compelled to give Michael a pass this time. So, I’m glad you finally agree that the criminal jury felt LK’s behavior was the cause of Michael’s break and didn’t want to punish him for that.
The new filings also claim there was a plan to physically harm him or others in his care. We know from previous filings that MHG’s kids were being searched for after they left the farm. So, I’m confident the new jury will also understand that LK had the duty to, at the very minimum, stop messing with him on social media.
13 Likes
The maximum punitive damage in the state of NJ is 5x the compensatory damages or $350,000, whichever is greater.
But I would like to take this moment to emphasize that punitive damages have criteria and it’s not just that the jury wants to punish someone. In particular, the NJ statute requires the assessment of the defendant’s awareness of and reckless disregard of the likelihood that the action would cause harm.
THEN, there is the question of amount, once the jury has decided punitive damages are awarded. In that case, the profitability of the misconduct to the defendant is considered.
I’m sure we have some smart people here who can see how the concept of punitive damages could apply in two directions here, not just one.
26 Likes
Was Michael not running a barn and earning a living up until the time of the shooting? That is what I stated; I said nothing about what the barn environment was like at the time prior to the shooting.
1 Like
I am not defending LK, this is more personal in nature: I found myself for many years, more than 15 years, unable to complete most things after an assault. More than 35 years later, I can still go into flight mode if someone comes up behind me. It takes a long time to work these things out.
11 Likes
Again, as @lazaret and others have repeatedly asserted, the prior verdict doesn’t determine this verdict. At all.
It’s a brand new case. With lots more evidence being able to be presented. This should worry the Plaintiff’s side greatly.
24 Likes
PTSD is often forever.
I’m sorry this happened to you.
12 Likes
And if the plaintiff here has any such recurrent issue, she is welcome to prove such and the detriment to her life in court as to her claim against him.
Nobody’s saying she does or doesn’t have recurrent issues. Simply that an assumption doesn’t fly and you (royal you) have to prove every injury you are claiming you are owed recompense for, and what that injury has cost you.
27 Likes
The jury did not give an explanation of their verdict so it is impossible to know what they thought or how and why they came to the verdict that they did. If the jurors complied with the oath they took prior to the start of the trial, they would have followed the judge’s instructions which were that they could consider the insanity plea IF they found that the prosecution had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Michael shot Lauren.
Maybe they ignored the judge’s instructions and decided that even though they didn’t believe that Michael was the shooter, they thought he looked like he needed help so they found him insane to make sure he got locked up in a mental health facility for an indeterminate amount of time. But holy hell, I certainly hope no one thinks that would be a good thing for a jury to do.
Michael hardly got a pass. Here are two articles describing what can happen to those who “win” an NGRI verdict:
https://www.criminallegalnews.org/news/2018/jan/19/insanity-defense-its-not-what-you-think/
2 Likes
No, @Sdel. I don’t agree that the jury determined that LKs “behavior was the source of his instability” or insanity.
The jury determined that he was legally insane when he shot her. They did not determine the cause of his insanity.
2 Likes
Oh oh….interesting argument to use now. So, are you now suggesting they meant something other than they wouldn’t hold Michael criminally responsible for being driven insane?
@CurrentlyHorseless. Someone needs a lecture about how the verdict was found and what it means and how verdicts can never be jury nullification because of “the directions they are given”.
6 Likes
Hmm…they had to rely on the expert testimony to get to the insanity. They only asked to rehear the defense psych experts again and who examined Michael first. They clearly sided with the defense’s experts in awarding the insanity defense. The defense experts only testified to LK’s behavior being the driving force behind Michael’s paranoia.
21 Likes
What argument are you saying I used previously? I’m not suggesting what they meant at all, which should be evident from my statement that you bolded. What is it you think you’ve caught me at?
What are you even trying to do here? This is such a weird response. I stated the judge’s instructions in my post that you quoted, which aligns with what CurrentlyHorseless has been saying.
1 Like
Golly, why hasn’t anyone explained this to CH before? /s
20 Likes
I agree she has to prove he shot her and that she has damages from having been shot.
I still don’t understand your previous assertion that she has to establish that he had a duty to her that he breached.
Doesn’t every trainer, landlord, or even a perfect stranger have a duty to refrain from shooting someone? Why isn’t it analogous to the OJ wrongful death suit, so that she needs to prove she was shot (easy), and he was the one who shot her?
1 Like
I have never said that jury nullification never happens. What I said about jury nullification is that it works in favor of the more sympathetic defendant, and that it was easy to be sympathetic to MB, with his Olympic achievements and his impressive character witnesses. If this verdict was influenced by jury nullification, it would have been returning a verdict of NGRI instead of a straight guilty verdict.
I’m definitely not the one to lecture Rubyroo. She and I are the same page.
