The increased cost argument doesn’t really apply if you are the one who brought the suit.
As plaintiff, you must be prepared to engage in the legal process, a big piece of which is discovery.
Thus, it doesn’t matter if depositions in general are expensive. The judge knows you are paying to depose people for your side of discovery. If any one of those people was asked to appear in person, your argument that you should be treated differently is pretty null and void.
On the whole though the law allows for in person depositions and you have to have a very good reason besides “it’s cheaper” if the person deposing you wants you to appear in person. You can’t force them to incur costs to send their lawyers to you for your own convenience if you’re the plaintiff.
OK, I’ll rephrase. If Bilinkas had presented admissible evidence of self defense (evidence that would have been admitted by an impartial judge), and Taylor ruled it inadmissible, wouldn’t that have been sufficiently egregious in a case in which the defendant was pleading Not Guilty by Reason of Self Defense, that Bilinkas should have appealed?
What is your response on my second argument: that there was concrete testimony directly cutting against a self defense argument in that the evidence showed that Barisone initiated the confrontation and brought the deadly weapon?
You can’t (and wouldn’t/shouldn’t ever) appeal an acquittal so it’s moot.
There’s hearsay evidence in the criminal trial. Unless you know something not included in the public record, we don’t know what will be presented in the civil suit.
No. The defendant had two defenses, being tried at the same time.
Further there is no avenue to appeal a 104 ruling in that moment, you would have to move for a mistrial (which would be immediately denied as groundless) or move for the judge to be removed (suicide) your best approach is to either 1. Find another way in, which is almost always possible if evidence is truly exculpatory or 2. Work around it. There’s been millions of cases where “bombshell” evidence is not admissible for whatever reason. It is not grounds for a mistrial; it can be grounds for appeal depending on the circumstances.
As to your second argument, if I understand you correctly, “concrete evidence cutting against” a defense is something for the jury to evaluate and determine the weight and truthfulness of. There is actually no such thing as “concrete evidence” only the jury’s collective opinion on what that evidence says.
When you’re asking for special dispensation, especially in a case you filed in the venue of your choosing, you have to do a bit more. Also, as I’m sure you’ve heard from many, most people who get COVID don’t die, or even get long COVID, so yes, she has to show why she has a higher risk than your average person.
Remember, there hasn’t been a finding that she has any long term effects of having been shot. The court is starting at zero, and discovery hasn’t concluded.
Well yes, because for either Not Guilty by Self Defense or Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity, the elements of the crime have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant is not saying he didn’t do it, he is saying why it is not a crime and that reason why is just proved by a preponderance of evidence. If the elements are not proved beyond a responsible doubt, then the verdict is a simple Not Guilty as in the verdicts concerning RG.
You are being EXTREMELY patient with your continued responses to certain people and their constant demands that you give them answers - answers which then don’t seem to change their thinking. You’re a better person than I. I really appreciate how you’re laying this all out for ALL of us, but you must desperately want a sturdy glass of wine as you repeat, then repeat again, the answers, using different words.
Ok, you win. I give up. Mostly because the criminal verdicts (four acquittals) are moot. They have no bearing whatsoever on the current proceedings the rest of us are trying to discuss.
Props to you, and thank you for going to the trouble.
I finally caught up on the thread, although I’m sure it will get away from me again like a runaway train in no time. But it is remarkable to see how much time and energy is wasted going over the same few points with the same few people. Three years later.
On the first point, if Barisone had pled just Not Guilty by Reason of Self Defense, the judge refusing to admit admissible evidence of self defense would have given the defense grounds to appeal Guilty verdict.
However, since he pled NGRI in addition to NGSelf Defense, and the jury agreed with NGRI, that means he can’t appeal the acquittal based on insanity, even though an acquittal based on self defense is much preferable.
In that sense, his adding the NGRI plea undercut his NGSelf Defense plea. If Bilinkas thought he could prevail on Self Defense, he would have pleaded self defense and not undercut that defense by adding NGRI. Would he have undercut a viable NGSelf Defense case if he actually had evidence to back up self defense?
In the criminal trial, the judge ruled that the expert’s testimony that Barisone said he remember driving over with the gun was not hearsay.
That’s the piece that I think lay people don’t get, until the discovery is done and the trial starts, there is nothing but allegations from either side. Nothing has been proven, even we here have been going on and on, in the eyes of the civil court, nothing is yet proved, and it is ALL up for grabs.
I think the lawyers are questioned for clarity and the arguments are between the non-lawyers.
Anyone has had experience with legal issues buying a house, some have divorces, filling out forms with notaries such as permit applications, testifying in court/depositions/interrogatories for various reasons such as employer causes, private workmanship disputes, subpoenas, Notice requirements, divorce, etc. Also lawyers can have varying areas of expertise-property, divorce, contract, real estate, development, criminal, civil litigation, business etc so sometimes someone with personal experience in a field may have knowledge beyond that if a lawyer in that particular field. Lawyers are trained in reading the law and how to use court cases to find the current application of the law and that is not what laymen usually do, unless they have become so expert in their field they are used to review proposed legislation to determine the impact on operations. .
Some of the lawyers and other non-lawyers such as “experts in their field” here have been very very helpful. Sometimes the non-lawyers are better are explaining points to other non-lawyers especially those who have experience serving and informing the public than the kinds of lawyers who are more used to speaking to their own kind. Some lawyers who serve a lot of clients and work with the public are just amazing with their patience and communication skills.
So when people seem to be arguing, sometimes it just clarification or indeed a differing view.
I guess you missed the one open hearing where Mr Bilinkas pointed out that NJ law requires the two to be tried at the same time if you’re going to argue both ever.
