MB Civil Trial: JK/KK Contempt of Court?

[lazaret]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

will LK end up eating all of SGFs legal expenses?

A valid remedy could be that the jury imposes a judgement for legal fees, yes.

Typically that is reviewed by the court to determine the reasonableness of the fees, in other words, neither side can waste time and bill for it and expect the losing party to pay. That said legitimate expenses, yes.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Sorry, your honor. I’m not a member of the jury and I, just me, I assume Bilinkas advised him to decline to testify so they he didn’t not have to answer questions from the prosecution.

At one point a Bilinkas said to the judge in a sidebar “I can’t put my client on the stand”, and the judge retorted, “Of course you can. You choose not to.”

Do you disagree that we know that he declined to testify? Why would he miss the opportunity to describe his state in mind, his terror, unless testifying exposed him to …

We know no such thing. Most defendants do not testify, and when they do it shifts the burden of proof. It opens them up to all sorts of questioning as well, which would likely be inadvisable for a person in a fragile mental state who is suffering from amnesia. It’s a complicated decision, but we have NO IDEA why he couldn’t or wouldn’t testify. It’s his right not to and it also means it’s the state’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime… and not his burden to prove his innocence.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@Sdel

So much for an insurance settlement.

Sure does sound like they want to settle, doesn’t it?

You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that you don’t offer to settle prior to first asking for summary judgement to exit that case altogether. Geesh.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@Sdel

So much for an insurance settlement.

Sure does sound like they want to settle, doesn’t it?

You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that you don’t offer to settle prior to first asking for summary judgement to exit that case altogether. Geesh.

Why so bitter? Every fact is in dispute, they are obviously very far apart on the settlement of things. Every fact! That means even the idea that MB brought the gun to the incident. Maybe there is something there?

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@Sdel

So much for an insurance settlement.

Sure does sound like they want to settle, doesn’t it?

You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that you don’t offer to settle prior to first asking for summary judgement to exit that case altogether. Geesh.

Once again, you failed to read the room and comprehend Sarcasm!

So, what are your thoughts on the SGF filing today??!! Please notice, Miss Kanarek WAS compelled to go to NJ for the criminal trial! Who does that?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

Sorry, your honor. I’m not a member of the jury and I, just me, I assume Bilinkas advised him to decline to testify so they he didn’t not have to answer questions from the prosecution.

At one point a Bilinkas said to the judge in a sidebar “I can’t put my client on the stand”, and the judge retorted, “Of course you can. You choose not to.”

Do you disagree that we know that he declined to testify? Why would he miss the opportunity to describe his state in mind, his terror, unless testifying exposed him to …

We know no such thing. Most defendants do not testify, and when they do it shifts the burden of proof. It opens them up to all sorts of questioning as well, which would likely be inadvisable for a person in a fragile mental state who is suffering from amnesia. It’s a complicated decision, but we have NO IDEA why he couldn’t or wouldn’t testify. It’s his right not to and it also means it’s the state’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime… and not his burden to prove his innocence.

1. I already switched the “we” to “I”.

2. I don’t believe you that the defendant choosing to testify “shifts the burden of proof”.

It always was and would remain the states burden to prove he committed a crime whether he chooses to testify or not. The only elements for which the defense had the burden of proof was self defense or the claim of insanity. None of that changes with his opting in or out of testifying. No, in no case is it his burden to prove “innocence”.

[eggbutt]

LEGAL EAGLE QUESTION please…
If Lauren decides to exit gracefully from the law suits right now, what happens to the contempt charges against mom and dad?

[Ambitious_Kate]

Ooh so juicy. Caught in her lies.

[Sdel]

@eggbutt

LEGAL EAGLE QUESTION please…
If Lauren decides to exit gracefully from the law suits right now, what happens to the contempt charges against mom and dad?

The go away if the whole case goes away. They may still stand if some portion of the case stays in dispute.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@lazaret

@CurrentlyHorseless

Do you disagree that we know that he declined to testify?

That is not what you said. You alleged, via your own inference, a reason for the action.

I see it exclusively as the defendant asserting his right not to testify in his own defense. Many defendants do for any myriad of reasons.

You are correct that you can assume that doing so would not be beneficial to his case. Considering the defendant is confirmed to have no recollection of the event of which he was accused, there is nothing he can offer in testimony, and it is entirely plausible that it has nothing to do with fear or diction or keeping sordid secrets.

Either way, it is not legally or really in any other interpretation an admission of guilt, as you are attempting to make it.

It is not true that “there is nothing he can offer in testimony” just be cause he doesn’t remember what happened on X hours on Aug 7, 2019. There was much to testify to regarding the days prior to Aug 7, such as why he asked RC to come to HH a week early and bring her gun, why he asked “to see it” and why he never asked LK to leave prior to Aug 5. Lots and lots of pertinent testimony.

How was it “confirmed” that his amnesia is real? Never mind, doesn’t matter.

Of course his declining to testify is not an admission of guilt.

[ekat]

@eggbutt

LEGAL EAGLE QUESTION please…
If Lauren decides to exit gracefully from the law suits right now, what happens to the contempt charges against mom and dad?

I imagine they’d get dropped along with everything else.

[StB.YM]

I love the way this law firm files.

[eggbutt]

I’m not sure if you’ve noticed, but the thread has moved on to much more current news than why Michael didn’t testify.

We are back on topic now.

[StB.YM]

He doesn’t have to testify in his own criminal trial. Most (actually, all) of the defense attorneys I follow prefer that their clients, innocent or guilty, never open their mouths and never get on the stand. Not testifying does not in any way imply guilt of any form. Its stated plainly in the jury instructions.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@Sdel

So much for an insurance settlement.

Sure does sound like they want to settle, doesn’t it?

You don’t need to be a lawyer to understand that you don’t offer to settle prior to first asking for summary judgement to exit that case altogether. Geesh.

Once again, you failed to read the room and comprehend Sarcasm!

So, what are your thoughts on the SGF filing today??!! Please notice, Miss Kanarek WAS compelled to go to NJ for the criminal trial! Who does that?

I understood the sarcasm perfectly, Eggbutt.

The sarcasm was directed at me, as I’ve said I predict the insurance company would settle. I never said they’d settle prior to first asking to be excused from the suit altogether. That would be just stupid.

[eggbutt]

Well, we now can assume they will never settle or back down. They have thrown their gambit.

[StB.YM]

Yeah, I don’t think they’re settling.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@StB.YM

He doesn’t have to testify in his own criminal trial. Most (actually, all) of the defense attorneys I follow prefer that their clients, innocent or guilty, never open their mouths and never get on the stand. Not testifying does not in any way imply guilt of any form. Its stated plainly in the jury instructions.

Yes, I know that. I even stated that the part about the judge instructing the jury that the defendant’s declining to testify should not be held against the defendant.

[Maria]

Guuuuuuurl, I think you spoke too soon.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@eggbutt

Well, we now can assume they will never settle or back down. They have thrown their gambit.

Really? How so? If they don’t get a summary judgement excluding them as a defendant, how do you know plan B is going to trial?