MB update

[roseymare]

Yes yes yes see my above comment. I compromised when I decided not to hang a jury.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

Why would you even think about the risks to the defendant of a second trial in the event your holding out caused a hung jury?

As a juror, you’re supposed to render your true assessment of the facts. Of course it extremely difficult. Of course there’s a lot of gray. But if you are genuinely not persuaded by the deliberations to change your stance, you’re supposed to continue to hold out until unanimity is reached or a hung jury declared.

If your honest assessment results in a hung jury, so be it. That’s the law. It’s not your job as an original juror to ponder what the second jury will decide.

Soooo , you’re criticizing my hypothetical thought process and hypothetical considerations if I had served on the jury in the criminal trial, deliberating various verdicts in this situation?

How about you? Would you have a perfectly clear head, and be willing to hang any jury over any potential doubt? Because you 100% live by the courage of your convictions, all the time, unequivocally?

I asked why you would be pondering the potential outcome of a second trial, if you were not intending to let those ponderings influence your decision as a juror on the original trial.

I would not hang a jury over “any potential doubt”, no. If I was not persuaded that the prosecutor had proven his case beyond a reasonable doubt on all elements of the case other than intent, then yes, I would continue deliberating until genuinely persuaded or a hung jury was declared, despite the prospect of returning after a five day weekend.

I pointed out to another poster that the jury asked fairly early in its deliberation for review of the expert testimony. That means that unanimity in ruling out “Not Guilty” (on LK) was achieved fairly quickly, and most of the time in deliberations was on the issue of insanity.

[Warmblood1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

Well, I’d think there is a legitimate distinction between a forensic psychiatric hospital like Ann Klein which handles patients committed via the court system due to a NGRI verdict, as compared to other psychiatric hospitals handling patients who become patients voluntarily.

Under the circumstances, MB cannot simply discharge himself. Maybe that’s what she meant.

There is NOT. Security measures put in place have absolutely nothing to do with a verdict, not if the patient is voluntary or involuntary, including private hospitals who take involuntary patients on a regular basis. They have to do with the safety of any and all patients, regardless why they are there, and those working within the hospitals. There is no variation in security in psychiatric hospitals; there is no minimum, medium, or maximum security psychiatric hospital and assuming so is a gross misunderstanding of why the security protocols are established in the first place.

Psychiatric hospitals, forensic or non-forensic, are not punitive. Variations in security in jails and prisons are based on the crimes committed as well as the behavior of the inmate in the facility, which can indeed be punitive.

Also, patients, whether voluntarily committed or involuntarily committed, at any forensic or non-forensic psych hospital, can not just discharge themselves whenever they wish. You can not just walk out of any psychiatric hospital. Once admitted, you are under the care of the doctor assigned to you. You must request the ability to leave, and even then, it can take several days for all the steps to take place for that to happen. Even if voluntarily committed, your doctor may disagree with you leaving and the patient still has to leave “against medical advice.”

Why are you even trying to justify what she means and her interpretation of things? Are you LK? Rhetorical. Your justification of her meaning seems like an overstep. Why do you do this?

[roseymare]

Moving even five horses is not equivalent to moving an entire operation though.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I pointed out to another poster that the jury asked fairly early in its deliberation for review of the expert testimony. That means that unanimity in ruling out “Not Guilty” (on LK) was achieved fairly quickly, and most of the time in deliberations was on the issue of insanity.

You are totally ASSUMING this. We don’t actually know what the jury had or had not decided on at that point though.

[eggbutt]

@Warmblood1

Why are you even trying to justify what she means and her interpretation of things? Are you LK? Rhetorical. Your justification of her meaning seems like an overstep. Why do you do this?

BINGO!!!

[eggbutt]

@roseymare

Moving even five horses is not equivalent to moving an entire operation though.

Yeah, keep in mind someone packed up and moved Barisone’s entire Northern Facility south with minimal help. Imagine how difficult that was with the property for sale, Barisone not there, being sure everything (the tiara!) was safely packed and moved, unpacking or storing everything at Barisone South. HUGE undertaking.

[BigMama1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

That’s a lot of assuming. And you know what they say when you assume…

[eggbutt]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

You are totally ASSUMING this. We don’t actually know what the jury had or had not decided on at that point though.

Grasping at imaginary straws to bolster their rhetoric.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Warmblood1

@CurrentlyHorseless

Well, I’d think there is a legitimate distinction between a forensic psychiatric hospital like Ann Klein which handles patients committed via the court system due to a NGRI verdict, as compared to other psychiatric hospitals handling patients who become patients voluntarily.

Under the circumstances, MB cannot simply discharge himself. Maybe that’s what she meant.

There is NOT. Security measures put in place have absolutely nothing to do with a verdict, not if the patient is voluntary or involuntary, including private hospitals who take involuntary patients on a regular basis. They have to do with the safety of any and all patients, regardless why they are there, and those working within the hospitals. There is no variation in security in psychiatric hospitals; there is no minimum, medium, or maximum security psychiatric hospital and assuming so is a gross misunderstanding of why the security protocols are established in the first place.

Psychiatric hospitals, forensic or non-forensic, are not punitive. Variations in security in jails and prisons are based on the crimes committed as well as the behavior of the inmate in the facility, which can indeed be punitive.

Also, patients, whether voluntarily committed or involuntarily committed, at any forensic or non-forensic psych hospital, can not just discharge themselves whenever they wish. You can not just walk out of any psychiatric hospital. Once admitted, you are under the care of the doctor assigned to you. You must request the ability to leave, and even then, it can take several days for all the steps to take place for that to happen. Even if voluntarily committed, your doctor may disagree with you leaving and the patient still has to leave “against medical advice.”

Why are you even trying to justify what she means and her interpretation of things? Are you LK? Rhetorical. Your justification of her meaning seems like an overstep. Why do you do this?

But Ann Klein Forensic Center is not a private psychiatric facility that takes patients voluntarily committed, is it?

It’s a state psychiatric hospital that serves patients committed via the court system.

That seems like a valid distinction to me.

[roseymare]

Aha I understand what you are saying now. That wasn’t how I read the post initially. I thought you were saying basically the opposite.

I agree with you.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

I pointed out to another poster that the jury asked fairly early in its deliberation for review of the expert testimony. That means that unanimity in ruling out “Not Guilty” (on LK) was achieved fairly quickly, and most of the time in deliberations was on the issue of insanity.

You are totally ASSUMING this. We don’t actually know what the jury had or had not decided on at that point though.

No, I’m inferring it based on the flow chart of jury instructions provided by the judge and how early in deliberations the jury requested the review the the expert testimony.

Is that what you mean by “assuming”? Yes, I’m
assuming the jury followed the flow chart provided by the judge.

[eggbutt]

Lala enjoys saying Ann Klein is a maximum security psychiatric hospital. For some reason she must feel the added emphasis of maximum security makes it sound more harsh, serious, dangerous, secure, punitive, whatever.

The following is from the Ann Klein website - notice nowhere are the words maximum security mentioned!

"The Ann Klein Forensic Center, a 200-bed facility, is the state’s newest psychiatric hospital and serves a unique population that requires a secured environment. Our facility provides care and treatment to individuals suffering from mental illness who are also within the legal system.

The clients at Ann Klein Forensic Center are special in many respects and require an interdisciplinary team approach. The care plan is comprised of both independent and interdependent contributions from our staff and is communicated to the medical security officer assigned to each client. We work as a team, with each member treating the other with courtesy, consideration, and respect. We serve our clients without judgment, applying professional knowledge and skill to achieve a positive outcome.

Safety is an important component in our work for both the clients and the staff. Every aspect of this is closely monitored for compliance so an environment of physical and emotional safety will be maintained for everyone."

[roseymare]

Now it is obvious you have never been on a jury

[Knights_Mom]

Takes civil commitments too.

[hut-ho78]

@Sdel

@CurrentlyHorseless

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.

So what. It really does not matter how a jury got to it’s deicision, they are allowed to come to whatever decision they want, however they want, and nothing can revoke that right, even if they didn’t use the “jury instructions”….

Considering the straight NG on RG’s charges, it’s clearly nullification. They simply were not going to reward LK and RG by sending Michael to jail.

I disagree. To me, it’s clearly that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MB fired a shot at RG. Two shell casings. ED testified he heard two bullets.

I think it’s possible a shell casing was stepped on and disappeared in the dirt but there is also a reasonable doubt.

Jury nullification is when the prosecutor proved his case and the jury clearly voted against that proof.

[ekat]

@hut-ho78

To me, it’s clearly that the prosecutor did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MB fired a shot at RG

How do you explain away the not guilty on the lesser included charge?

[Warmblood1]

@CurrentlyHorseless

But Ann Klein Forensic Center is not a private psychiatric facility that takes patients voluntarily committed, is it?

It’s a state psychiatric hospital that serves patients committed via the court system.

That seems like a valid distinction to me.

If you’re going to reply to me, at least have the courtesy of reading the post you are quoting and replying to.

Again, safety protocol is not based on whether the facility is a forensic facility, or if it is a non-forensic facility. Safety protocols are established on the premises that the facility is housing patients who may be a danger to themselves or others. It being forensic, or non-forensic, has nothing to do with this. I don’t know how to make that more clear.

Involuntary commitment at a forensic facility, or involuntary commitment at a private facility, are both committed based on the ruling of a judge. Safety protocols are not determined based on any sort of “criminal” aspect.

It does not matter if someone is homicidal and committed to a forensic center, or if someone is suicidal and voluntarily commits to a private hospital, the safety protocols are essentially going to be the same.

You keep trying to assert that there is a criminal aspect to MB’s evaluation. And in doing so, you are making erroneous comments regarding psychiatric facilities. Perhaps if you don’t know about something, you shouldn’t make statements pretending you do.

[eggbutt]

Interesting it says “maximum security” for this posting but not the general public info.

[Warmblood1]

“Maximum security psychiatric facility” is all fluff, as it implies that there are minimum security psychiatric facilities, and these do not exist in the United States.

There are not levels of security like there are in prison systems. That would suggest punitiveness as well.

There is treatment which involves a lower commitment level such as outpatient services: partial hospitalization, intensive outpatient, etc., but these are not inpatient settings. Similar to comparing inpatient rehab to a halfway house - they just aren’t the same.

ETA: There can be variations in privileges amongst patients in an inpatient setting but these are based on safety, not punishment. Is the patient safe doing XYZ? If not, they may lose that privilege. But it’s in stark contrast to say an inmate losing a privilege out of punishment and them getting time added on to their sentence.