Meh, seems they have proven it to the COTH jury.
1 Like
My apologizes, Ekat. I did not see your initial response.
Re the judge possibly wrongly refusing to admit admissible evidence of self defense: I can see that if that had happened, even egregiously, Bilinkas could not appeal given that the jury agreed with his plea of NGRI. In essence Barisone’s dual plea of NGSelfDefense and NGRI meant that having gotten what he asked for (NGRI), he can’t go back any say, ‘Yeah, but I’d prefer a straight NG”.
If he had pleaded just NG Self Defense, and not NGRI as well, and been found Guilty, egregious exclusion of evidence of self defense probably would have resulted in an appeal.
I still think that if there had been credible, admissible evidence that it was self defense, and if the prosecution did not have evidence to the contrary, Bilinkas would have simply pled NGSelf Defense.
I understand this is s new trial and a new jury. I’ll be interested in seeing the evidence that Barisone acted in self defense.
No, I did not miss the hearing you’re referring to.
The judge asked “Self Defense and NGRI, both? Don’t they contradict each other?
Bilinkas said “Yes, both. In NJ they must be considered in the same trial.”
Apparently, at one time the trial was bifurcated, and you could first have the jury render a verdict on the most preferred plea (straight not guilty). Then, if your Not Guilty plea failed, you can then plead NGRI and get a verdict on that.
Such a bifurcated trial in which you can first try for a straight NG, and only resort to NGRI if you can’t succeed at NG seems far preferable to the defendant.
Then there was a ruling that such bifurcated trials are not permitted. The defendant either picks a single plea, or, if he wants two different pleas, they must be tried at a single trial.
There is tension between self defense and NGRI
as defenses. The criterion for self defense is that a reasonable person would have felt he or someone else was in danger of death or serious injury. But the defendant is, at the same time, claiming that he is not sane and his actions are caused by delusions.
But, yes, I was aware of the issue of NJ no longer allowing bifurcated trials.
Maybe you should start a thread about criminal procedure? This thread is mainly about the civil motions for contempt.
37 Likes
I have apologized to Ekat for missing her initial response to my post responding to the question she addressed to me. Addressed to me and then promoted me when I first failed to respond.
I respect the legal knowledge of Ekat and the other lawyers. If she wishes to leave my questions unanswered, that’s her call.
1 Like
Thank you for both statements. Sorry it took me a minute - had a minor crisis on my hands.
I was going to respond, but I think it’s best we put the criminal trial in our rear view window and stick to discussing current happenings in the civil suit, like the pleadings filed in the last couple days.
20 Likes
We went through and removed some tangents getting further into interpersonal arguments, some name calling, etc. We appreciate that it can be difficult to separate posters from their opinions or their posting habits, but focusing on the later generally just gets the threads off track and devolves the discussion into tit-for-tat bickering.
We also removed some posts multi-quoting numerous other posts to keep the thread easier to follow. There’s little evidence to suggest that current posters are habitually editing their comments with ill intent. If someone wants to quote to respond, that’s of course fine. It’s also typically preferable to limit quoting to the most recent comment or two in a string of responses to help keep things more readable, particularly for those reading on mobile devices. Highlight the comment you want to include in your response, and click on the gray “quote” bubble that pops up to do so, vs. clicking on the reply button on a post with numerous previous included responses.
For the record, since she chose to repeatedly publicly divulge the information herself here and it continues to be the subject of debate, we can confirm that the Seeker1 account is registered to Kirby Kanarek.
Let’s please continue with the discussion of the developing civil case and related issues, and likewise keep our own discourse civil towards each other.
48 Likes
Scrolling thru Deringers motion this morning was just what I needed. The photos of LK and her sister stood out as a perfect representation of what they are dealing with, it was almost poetic.
Lost the criminal trial 
Lost the court of public opinion
Lost the civil trial 
They say good things happen in 3s. Let’s hope MB doesn’t take any settlement offer.
20 Likes
I’m going to hazard an answer based on a lifetime of reading the actual news in newspapers 
My impression is that lawyers, like everyone else, have broad freedom to make opinion type comments on cases and public affairs where they aren’t in the court room.
The rules of decorum imposed by a judge during a trial do not apply to commentary by those not in the Court room. Just like the rules of debate in Parliament or Congress don’t apply outside of the room (like in campaigns) and certainly don’t apply to people who are not sitting in that legislative body.
“Firebrand” defense or personal injury lawyers often say a lot of colorful things before trials, or used to.
IMHO his commentary on the jury falls well within the parameters of normal public commentary for someone who was outside that case.
4 Likes
I have absolutely no inside knowledge, but my gut instinct is that he would not.
Although I certainly would not blame him if he did, if only to put the whole thing in his rearview mirror that much sooner.
7 Likes
There is so much claiming of fact in this motion, I do think the judge should require some actual evidence be presented or at least attested to. The attorney is overstepping, and I would worry this is going to keep being an issue for him if he doesn’t pay closer attention to his pleadings.
It can also annoy the judge when they have to constantly referee at the discovery phase. They have plenty of other cases that need their time and attention. Discovery should be pretty self-managing, really.
15 Likes
Seems to be fairly consistent with everything coming out of that side. What do you think: chicken or egg?
6 Likes
And that’s what makes Mr Deininger’s response more interesting, in the way he laid out the requirements.
It just seriously scrambles my brain that a PLAINTIFF is doing this with discovery. In the suit they brought. I don’t get it.
21 Likes
Does anyone have any idea when the Krol hearing is scheduled now, if it is?
8 Likes
It makes me wonder what the Plaintiff thought the case was going to be like if this most basic discovery is causing them so much dysfunction.
They threaten to sue so many people I would have thought they would have some idea how the actual court process would work.
15 Likes
Personally, my only way to check is to look at the GoFundMe and the last update is still the bear that I love.
4 Likes
I think this is his MO, get stuff out and worry about fixing later. Which often works fine, unless you’re up against a really detail oriented attorney on the other side. Bluster gets you far, but details win the case.
8 Likes
Oh, that is interesting.
So a lawyer who makes the most noise might actually win, just because that is what the jury hears. Heck if what they were saying is on point.
4 Likes
