MB update

[DownYonder]

@eggbutt

Minor correction…this isn’t a competency hearing. It is a Krol hearing. Competency hearings are held to determine if a person is competent to stand trial.

Good point, and thanks for the clarification.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

If LK has posted that she has a right to be present at the hearing, what is the conflict?

The conflict is that she will have access to private medical information related to the evaluations that the doctors at AK currently treating MB will be presenting to the court at this hearing.

There is ongoing civil litigation happening at the same time between LK and MB.

I can understand if MBs civil litigation team prefers that LK not have ANY extra private information about him at this time, unless it is specifically mandated they provide such information as part of the discovery process.

I apologize to all the lawyers following this thread if I have done a crummy job articulating the legal risk I see in such a situation. I have probably butchered it. If one of you can more clearly articulate and speak to this issue, please do!

I understand that there are conflicting objectives: LK may want to make a statement while MBs lawyers may not want her present. It’s up to the judge to weight the conflicting objectives and rights of the parties.

I was asking whether there was a conflict on the factual issue of whether, according to current NJ law, she is or is not allowed to be present as the victim. I don’t see a conflict between what LK has posted and what Ekat has posted.

[ekat]

@Knights_Mom

This seems crystal clear to me.

Just one last comment from me on this. From what I have read, MB has the absolute right to have his support system present at the hearing, and they can testify if he and his attorneys so chose. That testimony is limited to what continued support they can provide upon his release. Again - not retrying facts of a concluded criminal case.

Since it appears to me, from the outside, MB does, in fact, have a strong support system and that could become quite relevant at this hearing, when it happens, as opposed to the victim restating three year old stuff that has no bearing on his present state of mind or what support he may have available outside the walls of AK. The victim’s opinion is irrelevant. MB’s family/support system is very relevant.

[Knights_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

If LK has posted that she has a right to be present at the hearing, what is the conflict?

The conflict is that she will have access to private medical information related to the evaluations that the doctors at AK currently treating MB will be presenting to the court at this hearing.

There is ongoing civil litigation happening at the same time between LK and MB.

I can understand if MBs civil litigation team prefers that LK not have ANY extra private information about him at this time, unless it is specifically mandated they provide such information as part of the discovery process.

I apologize to all the lawyers following this thread if I have done a crummy job articulating the legal risk I see in such a situation. I have probably butchered it. If one of you can more clearly articulate and speak to this issue, please do!

I understand that there are conflicting objectives: LK may want to make a statement while MBs lawyers may not want her present. It’s up to the judge to weight the conflicting objectives and rights of the parties.

I was asking whether there was a conflict on the factual issue of whether, according to current NJ law, she is or is not allowed to be present as the victim. I don’t see a conflict between what LK has posted and what Ekat has posted.

There is no statement. MB was acquitted. This part is ONLY about whether he presents a danger to himself or the public. That’s it.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@ekat

Just one last comment from me on this. From what I have read, MB has the absolute right to have his support system present at the hearing, and they can testify if he and his attorneys so chose. That testimony is limited to what continued support they can provide upon his release. Again - not retrying facts of a concluded criminal case.

Since it appears to me, from the outside, MB does, in fact, have a strong support system and that could become quite relevant at this hearing, when it happens.

Thanks for clarifying about whether key folks who are part of his support system would be allowed to attend a closed hearing.

It does seem HIGHLY relevant to hear from his support system to determine whether or not a conditional release is an appropriate step in his continuing mental health treatment plan.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I understand that there are conflicting objectives: LK may want to make a statement while MBs lawyers may not want her present. It’s up to the judge to weight the conflicting objectives and rights of the parties.

But… LK isn’t actually a relevant party involved in this hearing. The State of NJ, and MB are the relevant parties. LK is simply a witness from the criminal case.

So a key question is, does Schellhorn (who is representing the state of NJ) have any obligation to LK with respect to her attending this hearing or presenting a statement?

It’s a bit murky, but seems like the historic precedent with respect to Krol hearings is that they are VERY defined in scope, and not like a parole hearing, where there is a codified opportunity for victims to make an impact statement.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Schellhorn’s office is keeping LK and family up to date though, and being professional but supportive. That seems appropriate for a prosecutor’s office in a situation like this.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Knights_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

If LK has posted that she has a right to be present at the hearing, what is the conflict?

The conflict is that she will have access to private medical information related to the evaluations that the doctors at AK currently treating MB will be presenting to the court at this hearing.

There is ongoing civil litigation happening at the same time between LK and MB.

I can understand if MBs civil litigation team prefers that LK not have ANY extra private information about him at this time, unless it is specifically mandated they provide such information as part of the discovery process.

I apologize to all the lawyers following this thread if I have done a crummy job articulating the legal risk I see in such a situation. I have probably butchered it. If one of you can more clearly articulate and speak to this issue, please do!

I understand that there are conflicting objectives: LK may want to make a statement while MBs lawyers may not want her present. It’s up to the judge to weight the conflicting objectives and rights of the parties.

I was asking whether there was a conflict on the factual issue of whether, according to current NJ law, she is or is not allowed to be present as the victim. I don’t see a conflict between what LK has posted and what Ekat has posted.

There is no statement. MB was acquitted. This part is ONLY about whether he presents a danger to himself or the public. That’s it.

According to Ekat, NJ courts have historically held that a victim must show a compelling reason in order to attend.

[Angela_Freda]

@Knights_Mom

No victims attend. Period.

If he was acquitted, there wasn’t a victim, was there?
Therefore, no impact statements etc…,?

[eggbutt]

Where is the sign up sheet for supporters? I can bring a bus load of eager supporters from the dreaded state dressage goes to die! Is there an address to send telegrams (do they still exist?) sworn statements, whatever? Seriously? BTW, this isn’t about LK - it is ALL ABOUT MICHAEL BARISONE and his future health, safety and ability to live his dream in peace.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

I’ve been pondering the distinction between ‘victim’ and ‘witness for the prosecution’ … it seems most accurate to refer to her as a’witness for the prosecution’ at this point.

The civil litigation is different. She’s obviously a ‘plaintiff’ in that matter.

[eggbutt]

@CurrentlyHorseless

LK may want to make a statement

What on earth can LK or her family contribute regarding Barisone’s current mental state?? Not one thing. On the other hand it is clear to me who the real danger to his mental health is simply from public postings.

[Angela_Freda]

Agree.
I’m using LK term…

[trubandloki]

@eggbutt

What on earth can LK or her family contribute regarding Barisone’s current mental state ?? Not one thing

This is my thought too.
If the hearing is about his current mental state, and only about his current mental state, then they really have nothing to add to this hearing at all.

[eggbutt]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

I’ve been pondering the distinction between ‘victim’ and ‘witness for the prosecution’ … it seems most accurate to refer to her as a’witness for the prosecution’ at this point.

The civil litigation is different. She’s obviously a ‘plaintiff’ in that matter.

Great point!

[DownYonder]

It’s good to know that MB will be allowed to have his family/friends (i.e., his support system) there, and that they can testify on his behalf.

And for the legal eagles - since Schellhorn is representing the State, he is tasked with presenting a compelling reason why “the State” believes MB is still a danger to himself or the public. And his reason has to be something more tangible than “LK is still afraid of him.” Correct?

And does that basically mean that LK’s “rights” as victim ended with MB’s acquittal? Or is that too much of a stretch?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

@CurrentlyHorseless

I understand that there are conflicting objectives: LK may want to make a statement while MBs lawyers may not want her present. It’s up to the judge to weight the conflicting objectives and rights of the parties.

But… LK isn’t actually a relevant party involved in this hearing. The State of NJ, and MB are the relevant parties. LK is simply a witness from the criminal case.

So a key question is, does Schellhorn (who is representing the state of NJ) have any obligation to LK with respect to her attending this hearing or presenting a statement?

It’s a bit murky, but seems like the historic precedent with respect to Krol hearings is that they are VERY defined in scope, and not like a parole hearing, where there is a codified opportunity for victims to make an impact statement.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Schellhorn’s office is keeping LK and family up to date though, and being professional but supportive. That seems appropriate for a prosecutor’s office in a situation like this.

LK was the victim as well as a witness. NJ has a law regarding victim’s rights.

I agree that it is different from a parole hearing with a codified right for the victim to make a statement. I agree it’s murky.

Ekat has said that historically the victim must show a compelling reason in order to attend. I agree with you that one possibility is that she might not be allowed to attend the medical/psychiatric portion of the hearing for medical/privacy reasons, but —possibly— be permitted to make a statement regarding the effect of his release on her perception of her own safety.

[DownYonder]

@Virginia_Horse_Mom

But… LK isn’t actually a relevant party involved in this hearing. The State of NJ, and MB are the relevant parties. LK is simply a witness from the criminal case.

So a key question is, does Schellhorn (who is representing the state of NJ) have any obligation to LK with respect to her attending this hearing or presenting a statement?

You stated it much better than I did!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Angela_Freda

@Knights_Mom

No victims attend. Period.

If he was acquitted, there wasn’t a victim, was there?
Therefore, no impact statements etc…,?

That would be true if he had been acquitted as NG. With acquittal as NGRI, the victim was determined by the jury as finders of fact to have suffered the gun shot wounds, that is, there is still a victim.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

We are on the same page on these threads. I like it when that happens - you are pretty sharp .

[DownYonder]

@eggbutt

Someone told me LK has been chatting with someone on the YT chats who has been quoting South African law !