MB update

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CanteringCarrot

So I, as a victim, and my father, as a victim both had a say when it came to releasing the individual guilty of a crime committed against us. This individual was found to be guilty, but due to prison over crowding and “good behavior” he was up for early release. Our say didn’t really matter or weight heavily enough and he was released anyway…then OD’d a few days later and died. So, that was interesting.

Sooo, your example seems to reference making a victim statement at a parole hearing? Correct me if I am wrong. And fwiw, sorry you and your father went through whatever it is that you went through.

There are most certainly a variety of laws in place across the country to protect victims rights and their ability to make victim impact statements when it comes to sentencing hearings and parole hearings

But, in MBs case, we are talking about a Krol hearing in the state of NJ, which concerns a current mental health evaluation for someone who was adjudicated NGRI when it came to a crime.

Maybe it would be interesting to look at victims rights legislation relevant to the state of NJ and see what that has to say about Krol hearings?

[ekat]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Maybe it would be interesting to look at victims rights legislation relevant to the state of NJ and see what that has to say about Krol hearings?

The existing Victim Bill of rights says nothing about Krol hearings. That’s why they’re revisiting it in this current legislative session.

Here’s the current victim’s bill of rights. Please note, Michael Barisone was acquitted, so all that talk about sentencing, and impact statements for sentencing does not apply because he’s never going to be sentenced.

https://www.nj.gov/oag/njvictims/rights.html

[CanteringCarrot]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CanteringCarrot

So I, as a victim, and my father, as a victim both had a say when it came to releasing the individual guilty of a crime committed against us. This individual was found to be guilty, but due to prison over crowding and “good behavior” he was up for early release. Our say didn’t really matter or weight heavily enough and he was released anyway…then OD’d a few days later and died. So, that was interesting.

Sooo, your example seems to reference making a victim statement at a parole hearing? Correct me if I am wrong. And fwiw, sorry you and your father went through whatever it is that you went through.

There are most certainly a variety of laws in place across the country to protect victims rights and their ability to make victim impact statements when it comes to sentencing hearings and parole hearings

But, in MBs case, we are talking about a Krol hearing in the state of NJ, which concerns a current mental health evaluation for someone who was adjudicated NGRI when it came to a crime.

Maybe it would be interesting to look at victims rights legislation relevant to the state of NJ and see what that has to say about Krol hearings?

Yes, I know. But this person committed a serious crime, was found guilty, and hardly served much time. So it made me wonder how it pans out for someone find not NGRI and what kind of impact the victim would have on that, if any, at all. I can see victims statements re parole and whatnot, but re NGRI and mental health matters, I’m not sure. So I’m interested to learn more about that, and will read more about it. I’m not articulating my point very well at all, to be fair, I have a headache and should not be looking at a phone screen

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@ekat

That’s one of the things I find interesting. The evaluation has to be completed within five (5) days of the hearing, so everybody has absolutely current info to work with.

If the evaluation says MB is ready to go home, that’s what Schellhorn is to present to the court. NJ’s case law doesn’t really allow much deviation from that, absent some hard evidence otherwise. If the doc says he’s good, and they don’t have a stack of stuff that MB has sent out into the world during the eval period that is in opposition to the evaluation report, we’ll, he’s going home.

I wonder if their report will also make notes concerning continuing observations of the patient over the prior 60 days he will have spent at AK as of the end of August?

As for conditional release, it seems like it can hinge upon whether or not a patient can be released to live with a family member as part of the plan. I think this part might prove a little tricky, given his only residence is now in Florida, and might slow things down a bit. Hopefully not… but I could see it being a procedural challenge and just complicating/slowing down a conditional release plan.

[Warmblood1]

LK isn’t relevant to MB’s Krol hearing and that is evidentially very hard for some people to swallow.

As the judge already stated, the hearing is closed. End of story.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@ekat

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Maybe it would be interesting to look at victims rights legislation relevant to the state of NJ and see what that has to say about Krol hearings?

The existing Victim Bill of rights says nothing about Krol hearings. That’s why they’re revisiting it in this current legislative session.

Here’s the current victim’s bill of rights. Please note, Michael Barisone was acquitted, so all that talk about sentencing, and impact statements for sentencing does not apply because he’s never going to be sentenced.

https://www.nj.gov/oag/njvictims/rights.html

Thanks for posting that. I was interested in provision “c”.

[Knights_Mom]

@Warmblood1

LK isn’t relevant to MB’s Krol hearing and that is evidentially very hard for some people to swallow.

As the judge already stated, the hearing is closed. End of story.

THIS!!

[BigMama1]

LK isn’t relevant, period, except to her own friends and family. And that’s the way it should be.

[Knights_Mom]

@BigMama1

LK isn’t relevant, period, except to her own friends and family. And that’s the way it should be.

I 1000% agree. As for me until the civil trial she is irrelevant at this time.

[DownYonder]

@Jealoushe

Being found NCR and Acquitted are not the same thing.

Even news outlets referred to the verdict as an acquittal.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Thanks for posting that. I was interested in provision “c”.

Just to be clear, here is the text of provision c

“ To be free from intimidation, harassment or abuse by any person including the defendant or any other person acting in support of or on behalf of the defendant, due to the involvement of the victim or witness in the criminal justice process; ”

But… what is your point on this? It seems it would only apply to looking back at the criminal trial, during which LK was a victim/witness. And it seems that Schellhorn’s office would need to decide to bring charges against any parties who had harassed, intimidated or abused any of the victims or witnesses in that proceeding…

How likely do you think it is that Schellhorn’s office will pursue such charges?

And what does that have to do with the upcoming Krol hearing? The upcoming Krol hearing is a CLOSED hearing…

[Knights_Mom]

@ekat

The existing Victim Bill of rights says nothing about Krol hearings. That’s why they’re revisiting it in this current legislative session.

As clarification that is to codify that the privacy of the acquitted defendant outweighs the right to a statement or attendance by the victim at the hearing.

[ekat]

@Knights_Mom

As clarification that is to codify that the privacy of the acquitted defendant outweighs the right to a statement or attendance by the victim at the hearing.

YES! Sorry, my bad. I left that part out.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Knights_Mom

As clarification that is to codify that the privacy of the acquitted defendant outweighs the right to a statement or attendance by the victim at the hearing.

Exactly.

If everyone looks at the link to the NJ Constitutional Amendment for Victims Rights that @ekat so helpfully provided, it specifically opens with the following statement:

“A victim of a crime shall be treated with fairness, compassion and respect by the criminal justice system. A victim of a crime shall not be denied the right to be present at public judicial proceedings”

MB’s hearing at the end of August is not a public judicial proceeding.

[Sdel]

@CurrentlyHorseless

My interpretation of Ekat’s post was that, until currently pending legislation passes, the victim does, or may, have the right to be present at the hearing.

So…here is the rub…does she actually know when the hearing is supposed to be? If she doesn’t, well, then I guess that is your answer.

[DownYonder]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

“A victim of a crime shall be treated with fairness, compassion and respect by the criminal justice system. A victim of a crime shall not be denied the right to be present at public judicial proceedings”

MB’s hearing at the end of August is not a public judicial proceeding.

I’m guessing that particular distinction might have caused some tantrums here and there…

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

Thanks for posting that. I was interested in provision “c”.

Just to be clear, here is the text of provision c

“ To be free from intimidation, harassment or abuse by any person including the defendant or any other person acting in support of or on behalf of the defendant, due to the involvement of the victim or witness in the criminal justice process; ”

But… what is your point on this? It seems it would only apply to looking back at the criminal trial, during which LK was a victim/witness. And it seems that Schellhorn’s office would need to decide to bring charges against any parties who had harassed, intimidated or abused any of the victims or witnesses in that proceeding…

How likely do you think it is that Schellhorn’s office will pursue such charges?

And what does that have to do with the upcoming Krol hearing? The upcoming Krol hearing is a CLOSED hearing…

My point is that provision “c” is enumerated as one of a victim’s rights. If the victim’s rights have been violated by “any person acting in support of or on the behalf of the defendant” the issue might come up in the hearing, whether brought up by the victim, or by the prosecutor if the victim is not permitted to make a statement.

I think it is extremely unlikely that Schellhorn’s office would pursue charges. Not all violations of someone’s rights are criminally actionable.

The Kroll hearing is closed “to the public”. Some key people other than psychiatric experts and officers of the court, such as the people who will constitute MBs support system upon release, will attend. It is not clear to me whether LK will be permitted to attend, but on this issue, it seems the prosecutor could raise this issue on behalf of the victim if it is relevant.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

My interpretation of Ekat’s post was that, until currently pending legislation passes, the victim does, or may, have the right to be present at the hearing.

So…here is the rub…does she actually know when the hearing is supposed to be? If she doesn’t, well, then I guess that is your answer.

???

“That is my answer” to what question?

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

It is not clear to me whether LK will be permitted to attend, but on this issue, it seems the prosecutor could raise this issue on behalf of the victim if it is relevant.

It is clear. Quite clear. LK cannot attend.

The end.

[whitehouse1988]

Because he is with other people that are a danger to themselves and others.