MB update

[hut-ho78]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Bolded = mine

@hut-ho78

RG charged an active shooter, MB, before he had time to reload.

The only thing that supports this is RG and LKs testimony

He saved LK, MB (suicide, active shooters are often depressed individuals who want to die by suicide by cop but take a lot of people with them, and himself. He may have saved people at the other barn.

This is all speculation and hypothetical scenarios on your part

He had a full magazine in his pocket and could have reloaded in seconds.

There is conflicting evidence from the police who responded to the scene when it comes to this point

He was much larger than RG and a superb athlete. The 911 call reveals the effort in RG’s voice.

The 911 call also reveals MB moaning softly, repeatedly in the background. It sure sounded like he was a severely injured man who was face down on the ground. That’s exactly what the police found when they arrived on the scene

For MB to receive NGRI, the prosecutor had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MB shot LK even though he was so delusional at the time he could not be given straight up Guilty and there was no evidence presented of self defense.

There is a possibility that jury nullification was in play. The jury could have decided on NGRI for that reason as well, rather than declaring a hung jury

The civil hearing won’t just bring up her past which the defense attorney kept slipping in but also his. There won’t be any confidential information. Full disclosure. For both their sakes and so this forum moves on, I hope it is a quiet settlement.

Arrest records are pretty easily researched already. That sure is interesting. If she wants to receive compensation for lost income, she will also have to provide information as to how she has earned a living, and other income for years on end. Most everyone knows MB earned a living as a dressage professional.

Bottom line, you’re right… there won’t be many stones left unturned. We will see what happens, and whether or not anyone decides to settle instead of fight. It seems like a quiet settlement, and moving on with life might be a VERY good idea for some people to think long and hard about.

QFP

[hut-ho78]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

Yes, and if the jury had been convinced by the prosecution’s psych experts that he shot LK while NOT in a delusional state, he’d be in prison instead of a psychiatrist institution right now.

Yes, he was found to be in a state of delusion….one that was brought on by extreme fear. The state psych witness confirmed for the jury it was right for them to accept Simring’s conclusions that the delusions were brought on by LK’s actions.

Just because a jury is charged to find things a certain way doesn’t mean they always do. That is the basis for jury nullification. One way is for a jury to completely disregard jury instructions on how to find a verdict and do their own thing. For all you know, they thought he was straight up NG on all charges but felt obligated to ensure he got mental health treatment for the damage LK did to him and that is why they came up with NGRI.

QFP

[hut-ho78]

@Sdel

@ekat

Also: Branca did not watch all of the experts’ testimony by his own admission. Therefore, his conclusions were incorrect at best.

Branca also chalked up the verdict to jury nullification. So that throws out the precious jury instructions and how that means the jury found X because they believed Y right there….

So Hut, when is LK going to appear on Law of Self-Defense?

QFP

[hut-ho78]

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t understand your position here. If the jury had not unanimously agreed that the prosecutor established all elements of his case with the sole exception of intent beyond a reasonable doubt, wasn’t the jury instructed to find MB Not Guilty (straight NG)? As they did on the charges wrt RG?

Since the jury did not stop at NG for LK, that shows that on all elements except for intent, they thought that he shot her. Not with 100% certainty, but to

I think I have explained my position pretty clearly. No one knows what the jury thought except those 12 jurors. Could have been a compromise, could have been nullification, could have been they were unclear on the instructions and went with whatever would get them out of them out of there and not have to come back after a dice day weekend.

Juries do weird things. You and @hut-ho78 can pretend all you want that you KNOW what they were thinking, but you don’t, until they speak out.

QFP

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Soooo 2000 posts ago I made a comment that it is POSSIBLE that jury nullification was in play, and then you quote that out of context, pull it into a discussion about a very recent post by @ekat discussing various factors that may have been in play WHILE the jury was deliberating, which MIGHT have influenced their decision to reach a verdict immediately prior to a 5 day holiday recess after which they would have been called back to deliberate more…

And somehow… you think you have definitely proven… What exactly? What are you proving?

Why don’t you stick with the actual discussion we are currently having champ.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

Did you read the post by Ekat to which I was responding? She said that I couldn’t “know what the jury was thinking” when they reached the verdict of NGRI, because it was a possibility that they compromised, didn’t understand the jury instructions, etc.

Assuming the jury understood the jury instructions and did not compromise rather than reach genuine unanimity, the verdict of NGRI implies that they determined that beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecution established all elements of its case other than intent.

Regarding the bolded sentence… it’s VERY possible multiple jurors were strongly leaning in different directions with respect to the verdict, but after deliberating at length, decided they could support the specific verdict they rendered unanimously.

That’s QUITE a different thing than saying that some jurors actual DIDN’T feel genuinely supportive of the verdict, but voted for it anyway.

Yes, it’s normal for a jury to start out not unanimous and after deliberation either reach true unanimously held verdict. If some jurors are genuinely not persuaded by the deliberations to change their stance, they’re supposed to continue deliberating until unanimity is reached or a hung jury is declared.

Regarding the bolded in your post: that’s a normal, honest, unanimous verdict. It doesn’t matter what they thought individually before deliberations, just what they thought after deliberations and all honestly supported as the unanimous verdict.

[trubandloki]

@hut-ho78

QFP

You can save yourself the typing. It requires one character for a post so something as simple as a period will work. Unless you are trying to make the point that you are quoting things to save them…

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Oh good. Glad we can agree.

Do you think when jurors are looking at a 5 day recess, and then getting called back to deliberate more AFTER that recess, that it MIGHT POSSIBLY incentivize them to settle on a particular verdict they have been agonizing over, rather than coming back for many more days of deliberation and possibly hanging?

Call me crazy… but I think that pressure might factor into the deliberations just a little bit.

[iberianfan]

I think the problem is calling the jury “dishonest” or not obeying instructions. I don’t think Ekat, VHM, myself, etc., thing anything of the sort.

One can compromise to come to a unanimous decision and that does not make one dishonest. As CH, said, “after deliberations and all honestly supported as the unanimous decision”. How does that rule out compromise???

If they started out 6-6 NG vs NGRI. And,during the deliberations. the 6 NG folks felt like NGRI was a viable answer given the appalling failure of evidence. Isn’t that compromise?? Isnt’ that honestly deliberating?

[alicen]

Amen! Dogs are the best!

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@iberianfan

If they started out 6-6 NG vs NGRI. And,during the deliberations. the 6 NG folks felt like NGRI was a viable answer given the appalling failure of evidence. Isn’t that compromise?? Isnt’ that honestly deliberating?

In this situation, I would imagine all 12 jurors think long and hard about what might happen if they hang. If MB is retried… it’s possible the next jury will find him guilty.

There would be a lot of pressure on all 12 jurors in this hypothetical situation to reach a verdict to avoid a hung jury and retrial situation…

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@ekat

@CurrentlyHorseless

I don’t understand your position here. If the jury had not unanimously agreed that the prosecutor established all elements of his case with the sole exception of intent beyond a reasonable doubt, wasn’t the jury instructed to find MB Not Guilty (straight NG)? As they did on the charges wrt RG?

Since the jury did not stop at NG for LK, that shows that on all elements except for intent, they thought that he shot her. Not with 100% certainty, but to

I think I have explained my position pretty clearly. No one knows what the jury thought except those 12 jurors. Could have been a compromise, could have been nullification, could have been they were unclear on the instructions and went with whatever would get them out of them out of there and not have to come back after a dice day weekend.

Juries do weird things. You and @hut-ho78 can pretend all you want that you KNOW what they were thinking, but you don’t, until they speak out.

Oh, OK.

Let me rephrase. Assuming the jury correctly understood the flow chart for arriving at a verdict, and assuming they did not send out a verdict just to get out for a long weekend, and assuming that they were genuinely unanimous and did not compromise and just lie in saying they were unanimous, again to get done quicker, the observation that they rejected the possible verdict of straight not guilty and chose between guilty and NGRI, implies that the jury as fact finders determined that the prosecution proved all elements of its case other than intent with respect to LK.

I was assuming that the jury did its job honestly and while understanding the jury instructions.

So no, I don’t know “what they were thinking”. I know what the NGRI verdict implies about their determination as finders of fact, assuming they did their jobs honestly and correctly.

ETA For future reference, this is post 3470.

So, to be clear, you do not agree with Nagel that the jury/verdict was insane?

[Einhorn]

@trubandloki

It is not that easy to pull up stakes on a horse functioning horse facility. Even less so when you have extremely crazy legal bills.

Hmm, someone else made this argument about moving horses… And look how that turned out.

I agree it would be best if he moves. With the price of land right now, and apparently many supporters, I think this could be done even with other stuff going on. It would be hard, but not impossible.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

Oh good. Glad we can agree.

Do you think when jurors are looking at a 5 day recess, and then getting called back to deliberate more AFTER that recess, that it MIGHT POSSIBLY incentivize them to settle on a particular verdict they have been agonizing over, rather than coming back for many more days of deliberation and possibly hanging?

Call me crazy… but I think that pressure might factor into the deliberations just a little bit.

I would think that whether they’re coming up on another Tuesday, or a normal weekend, or a five day weekend, the jurors always would like to reach a verdict as soon as possible and get done.

They should continue coming back until the deliberations have resulted in a genuinely unanimous verdict, or until a hung jury is declared.

If that genuine unanimity is achieved, regardless of disparate opinions prior to deliberation, I am correct in inferring that the unanimous verdict of NGRI implies that the jury, as finders of fact, determined that, beyond a reasonable doubt, the prosecutor established all elements of his case aside from intent.

If some jurors were not persuaded by the deliberations to genuinely agree to a verdict of NGRI, and nevertheless just said that they agreed to NGRI to avoid coming back after a five day weekend, or a two day weekend, that would be an example of the jury not doing it’s job correctly.

I have been assuming all along that the jury did its job honestly and correctly, while correctly understanding the jury instructions. Based on Ekat’s post, I now know that I have to make that assumption explicit.

[eggbutt]

Will someone please explain to me in very, very elementary terms why @CurrentlyHorseless and @hut-ho78 continue to bring up and debate the criminal verdict? Do they expect the verdict to be overturned or something equally strange? Please explain to me what the absolute obsession with the verdict is to these people other than it wasn’t straight up guilty with Barisone heading to prison for life. Maybe it’s time for them to drop that from their collection of tangents to post over and over and over and over again.

[hut-ho78]

@eggbutt

Will someone please explain to me in very, very elementary terms why @CurrentlyHorseless and @hut-ho78 continue to bring up and debate the criminal verdict? Do they expect the verdict to be overturned or something equally strange? Please explain to me what the absolute obsession with the verdict is to these people other than it wasn’t straight up guilty with Barisone heading to prison for life. Maybe it’s time for them to drop that from their collection of tangents to post over and over and over and over again.

Coming from someone who doesn’t care enough about anything we post to even read them as stated more than once…although you do call for us to come back when we don’t post for a while.

[Einhorn]

Because every like, bump, or response is a reward.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@iberianfan

I think the problem is calling the jury “dishonest” or not obeying instructions. I don’t think Ekat, VHM, myself, etc., thing anything of the sort.

One can compromise to come to a unanimous decision and that does not make one dishonest. As CH, said, “after deliberations and all honestly supported as the unanimous decision”. How does that rule out compromise???

If they started out 6-6 NG vs NGRI. And,during the deliberations. the 6 NG folks felt like NGRI was a viable answer given the appalling failure of evidence. Isn’t that compromise?? Isnt’ that honestly deliberating?

A juror being polled and saying “this is my verdict; NGRI” if the juror does not think the prosecutor proved his case (except for the issue of intent) that’s an example of a dishonest juror.

Ekat never said that she actually thought that there were dishonest jurors or jurors who misunderstood the jury instructions. However, she brought up the possibility of various deviations from correct, fully informed behavior of the jury to refute my statement that the jury decision of NGRI implies that the jury determined “that he shot her”.

It just means that for my statement to be correct, I need to make explicit the assumption that I had left implicit: that the jury was acting correctly and consistently with jury instructions.

If the 6 jurors (or even one juror) felt that there was “an appalling failure” of evidence on the prosecutor establishing his case, then those jurors should have held out for straight NG or hung the jury. It would be a travesty for them to simply agree with the other 6 and then decide between Guilty or NRGI.

[trubandloki]

@Einhorn

Hmm, someone else made this argument about moving horses… And look how that turned out.

The two situations are not even slightly comparable.
One is a business, with buildings and land development. The other is a random boarder with a few horses.

It is kind of insulting that you compare the two.

[avjudge]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

In this situation, I would imagine all 12 jurors think long and hard about what might happen if they hang. If MB is retried… it’s possible the next jury will find him guilty.

At the time of the deliberations I was thinking about a hung jury and possible retrial and it just seemed so horrible to me to put MB through that again. I wonder if on a human level that thought also affected at least some of the jurors, who had been in the room with him through the trial.