Mb civil suit rulings 11/15/2022

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@BigMama1

@CurrentlyHorseless

I do not need to “explain the fact that his statement about the verdict is incorrect” because I don’t believe his statement is incorrect. I think Judge Sceusi is correct, as I stated the first time you asked.

If you think his statement that the verdict was “guilty but not criminally responsible due to insanity,” is correct, then you must believe that “guilty but not criminally responsible due to insanity” is the same as “not guilty by reason of insanity,” which is the actual verdict written on the actual verdict sheet.

Look at the verdict sheet. Does it say “guilty but not criminally responsible?” No.

I believe the judge’s statement is incorrect because I know those are two different verdicts, not interchangeable with each other. The question is why do you believe they are?

The phrase “guilty but not criminally responsible due to insanity” is not a verdict. That’s why you don’t see it on the “verdict sheet”.

In NJ, possible verdicts on a charge of attempted murder are:
Guilty
Not Guilty
Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity

I have used capitalization to distinguish specific words or phrases that are verdicts from words or phrases that are not verdicts.

“guilty but not criminally responsible due to insanity” is a phrase but not a verdict.

To be found Guilty, the jury must find both actus reus (guilty act) and mens rea (guilty mind) are present. A defendant is presumed sane unless proven insane by the defense. Barisone was not found Guilty because the defense met its burden in establishing that he was insane. Guilty act was present but not guilty mind.

To be found Not Guilty, the defense would have needed to negate the prosecutors case regarding the commission of the guilty act. However, the prosecution succeeded in meeting its burden to establish that the guilty act (actus reus) occurred. That’s why Barisone was not found Not Guilty.

While the prosecution established the actus reus (guilty act), the mens rea (guilty mind) was not present because the defense met their burden of establishing insanity. In this case (the finding is actus reus but without mens reus) the verdict is Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

The judge stated that “Barisone was found guilty of attempted murder, but not criminally responsible due to insanity”. That phrase is not itself a “verdict”, but instead is a straightforward interpretation of the NGRI verdict, pointing out that the actus reus was established (MB was found guilty of the act of attempted murder) but that mens rea was not present (MB was not criminally responsible for having committed the actus reus, because he was found to be insane at the time).

The verdict was NGRI, as everyone, including the judge understands. The sentence you are objecting to is not a statement as to the technical verdict, but instead the judge’s explanation of what the NGRI verdict means in terms the jury’s finding of fact regarding whether MB committed the act of attempted murder. He committed the act (he shot her). He did not commit the crime because the jury also determined that he lacked the intent that would be required to make it a crime. That’s why NGRI is an acquittal; no crime was committed despite the jury finding that the guilty act occurred.

The judge’s statement regarding the interpretation of Barisone’s NGRI is exactly consistent with the interpretation that @hut-ho78 and I have been stating all along. It’s a bit surprising to me that a couple of people, notably @Knights_Mom and you, BigMama, are claiming that the actual judge in the actual civil case is wrong about the interpretation of the NGRI verdict.

[IPEsq]

@iberianfan

In my very limited litigation experience, the judge may use the facts as cited by the plaintiff until they are proven untrue. I would bet this language comes from one of LK’s documents.

I was involved in a case that went to Appeals on an interlocutory appeal. Because the rest of the case had not yet been heard, the Appeals court cited the plaintiff’s facts verbatim.

It’s highly possible that is all that’s going on here.

I’m behind on this thread, but this is what I’m thinking also. The background information is not part of the holding so it can be a bit sloppy (although shouldn’t be), but the court is usually going off of other documents before it and not conducting its own research for this kind of thing.

In more formal decisions (e.g., judicial decisions in cases without jury trial), you’ll also have a section on party A alleges this and party B alleges that which basically summarizes their briefs. When looking for what the judge (or panel of judges) is saying about the case, lawyers start with paying attention to the analysis and holding sections of the decision.

[MHM]

@lazaret

In fact the judge has said they have only 10 days to comply with any new subpoenas - so in 20 days max they’ll have to produce or have THEIR counsel oppose.

So what will happen if one if the parties decides to blow through the new deadlines?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@Jenerationx

So… MB’s amendment gets in, and the issue with the tapes is going to get interesting and subpoenas will be reissued with a narrower scope? Did anything else of note happen?

The Judges Order came with some errors in the recap of what happened previously. This is being disputed by us now.

LOL. Yes. The judge stated as background facts that the civil case arose out of a criminal case, and that in the criminal case it was determined that LK was lawfully sitting on the porch when MB shot her twice without provocation.

[trubandloki]

@CurrentlyHorseless

and that in the criminal case it was determined that LK was lawfully sitting on the porch

I do not remember there being any testimony at the criminal case about how lawful or not Lauren was sitting on the porch. I do not believe that topic even came up at the civil trial.

[Sdel]

@trubandloki

I do not remember there being any testimony at the criminal case about how lawful or not Lauren was sitting on the porch. I do not believe that topic even came up at the civil trial.

Not only that, lawfully being on a porch or not is a civil matter, not a criminal one. And there has been no fact finding yet in this case.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

Sure. The verdict was Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity.

The NGRI verdict incorporates the finding that the defendant committed the act with which he was charged. However, since the insanity finding precludes his having intent, he is not criminally responsible for having shot her.

[eggbutt]

Nor was there “proof” that Barisone shot anyone! For all we know she was shot by some figment of her king and queen castle game.

Yet, here we are still repeating the same thing to the same people. Sad. Reality is hard to grasp for some. Reminder, there is no Santa IRL!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@trubandloki

I do not remember there being any testimony at the criminal case about how lawful or not Lauren was sitting on the porch. I do not believe that topic even came up at the civil trial.

Not only that, lawfully being on a porch or not is a civil matter, not a criminal one. And there has been no fact finding yet in this case.

Of course “being lawfully on the porch” is not a crime. But by saying that, the judge seems to contradict the idea that she was either squatting or trespassing.

[erinmeri]

How many legal professionals weighing in will it take for some posters to realize that what is contained in the judge’s rulings does not necessarily constitute set in stone facts? My word, you’d think this case had been argued and decided based on what some folks are asserting!

[lazaret]

Neither is at issue so it doesn’t matter.

It was language included in the plaintiff’s filing in order to present the person in a particular way but, I cannot stress this enough:

The facts about what did or did not happen and who is or is not responsible will be decided by the jury. Not until their verdict is reached is anyone stating anything that can be called a fact.

Since the defendant DENIES the plaintiff’s statement, they are legally NOT FACTS. Same goes the other way. The only thing that can be considered a fact is what both parties have stipulated as true, which is basically nothing beyond basic items that don’t matter. Everything else is in dispute and therefore not a fact.

[Knights_Mom]

@eggbutt

Reminder, there is no Santa IRL!

Fake news!! Don’t be dissing Santa!

[Knights_Mom]

Wish the judge used better language like “Plaintiff asserts that…”.

[erinmeri]

@lazaret

The facts about what did or did not happen and who is or is not responsible will be decided by the jury. Not until their verdict is reached is anyone stating anything that can be called a fact.

Since the defendant DENIES the plaintiff’s statement, they are legally NOT FACTS. Same goes the other way. The only thing that can be considered a fact is what both parties have stipulated as true, which is basically nothing beyond basic items that don’t matter. Everything else is in dispute and therefore not a fact.

Thank you!!! Wish we could pin this post!!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@iberianfan

That is my thought. In any case, I would not read too much into it. The judge doesn’t have enough information to have formed that scenario.

The judge knows the outcome of the criminal case, and specifically cited the civil case as “arising out of” the criminal case.

If the outcome of the criminal case were irrelevant to the civil case, why would the judge be taking the outcome of the criminal case as the background it starting point of the civil case?

[CanteringCarrot]

@Sdel

@trubandloki

I do not remember there being any testimony at the criminal case about how lawful or not Lauren was sitting on the porch. I do not believe that topic even came up at the civil trial.

Not only that, lawfully being on a porch or not is a civil matter, not a criminal one. And there has been no fact finding yet in this case.

Re the no fact finding, that’s the crux of the matter, I think.

When a civil case begins or comes into existence it is because the plaintiff has submitted a complaint. It’s entirely possible that the judge then repeats the content of the complaint and goes off what he knows from the plaintiff. In this case there hasn’t been any fact finding yet (its just beginning!), major arguments, or much else.

The plaintiff has submitted a complaint and the burden of proof is on them. Essentially this case is being stated as it is at the moment, it may later be found that there is in fact no proof behind some of the plaintiffs claims. We’re not at that part though. Some people think we are? I don’t know. I do not see all of the posts in this thread.

I think it’s entirely possible that the basic summary in the ruling is just parroting the plaintiffs claims at the moment. It doesn’t mean anyone determined anything re someone being guilty or lawfully doing something.

This is just my hypothesis, and I don’t know much about civil court proceedings, and I very well could be wrong, and that’s ok. None of what I am stating is fact, it’s merely me coming up with possibilities and tossing thoughts around.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

How many legal professionals weighing in will it take for some posters to realize that what is contained in the judge’s rulings does not necessarily constitute set in stone facts? My word, you’d think this case had been argued and decided based on what some folks are asserting!

Have you noticed that some of the “legal professionals” weighing in on the judge’s ruling are asserting that the judge is wrong?

Either the judge is wrong or those “legal professionals” are wrong.

[CanteringCarrot]

@Knights_Mom

Wish the judge used better language like “Plaintiff asserts that…”.

That’s kind of what I expected, tbh. Especially at this stage. I am interested in why that language wasn’t used. Is that because it’s a given?

[Sdel]

@CanteringCarrot

This is just my hypothesis, and I don’t know much about civil court proceedings, and I very well could be wrong, and that’s ok. None of what I am stating is fact, it’s merely me coming up with possibilities and tossing thoughts around.

You are correct. We aren’t there yet. Fact finding will start happening when we see summary judgements or jury trial. SGF has already indicated they intend to file for summary judgement after some depositions are done.

[lazaret]

Pretty much.

But also a lot of people are pretty mediocre legal writers. With the benefit of hindsight I’m sure I could have worded a lot of things better than I did.

But fundamentally everything stated right now is basically just different people asserting things because no proof has been presented for any of it. It won’t be presented until trial. So we are in the “information gathering” phase and this can be a long one.