Michael Barisone/Lauren Kanarek Civil Suit

[lazaret]

@hut-ho78

I don’t think he blew through the first 90 days and ignored that requirement, I think the court calendars were that overwhelmed by lack of funding and staffing and then add Covid with those delays and even more limited courts to meet Covid spacing. I think that was beyond his control.

This doesn’t matter, it is still open to legal challenge and let the higher court decide whether court calendars overrule someone’s constitutional rights to due process.

That is their job, to determine if a lower court erred. You can err in good faith, and still have it be an error that results in the overturning of a previous judgement. It just depends on what the higher court feels the totality of the circumstances were.

ETA: you can even make errors that nobody would have ever thought were an error until someone challenges it persuasively in a higher court. Appellate law is very rarely about the issue on its face and much more often about underlying principles, precedent, context, and the “intent” of what a decision was supposed to accomplish.

[ekat]

@hut-ho78

If HIPAA doesn’t apply and the state law states that NGRI KROL hearings must be by camera except murder (and by default attempted murder-you don’t get credit if they live) then in this instance Judge Taylor is complying.

I don’t think he blew through the first 90 days and ignored that requirement, I think the court calendars were that overwhelmed by lack of funding and staffing and then add Covid with those delays and even more limited courts to meet Covid spacing. I think that was beyond his control.

Your by default doesn’t work that way. Attempted murder is not murder. They are different charges under different statutes entirely. There’s no, by default. The rule is quite specific. Notice it doesn’t say “by default” other random charges. You kind of do get credit if they live, because then it’s not murder.

Re: the 90 days: again, the law and the rules and the existing case law is quite specific. For example:

https://casetext.com/case/matter-of-commitment-of-raymond-s

[lazaret]

I see a higher court has apparently already decided vis a vis the court calendar versus 14th amendment and found the court calendar on the losing side of that.

[Angela_Freda]

@eggbutt

She can’t help herself. Relieving wealthy women of their assets? Where’s the proof of that?

@Paint_Party

I like the reference to “all the wives and girlfriends at the same time living on the same property.” How many wives? How many girlfriends? Was it a sister wives sort of thing?

That’s quite a bit of over-dramatization from ol’ Clara/Kirby. It sounds like the makings of a 6-part Netflix series.

I wonder why they have to create fiction to support their position?
Sad.
.

[3PonyFarm]

I like how it is stated that the role of the judge is that of a neutral decision maker.

[Long_Time_Lurker]

@erinmeri

, of COURSE Barisone’s mental health issues had to be made public in order to mount a defense of NGRI, by definition they would have had to be. For Taylor to say that means Barisone’s rights to privacy are waived is absurd on the surface. If it weren’t, why would it be necessary for procedure to codified, i.e. NJ Rules 3:19-2 and 4:74-7, that state otherwise for all but those acquitted of murder?

To take this one step further, I would think that EVERY defendant pleading NGRI would need to provide mental health information during their trial. And since these are the ONLY people who will then have Krol hearings in the months/years after their trial, it is reasonable to conclude that the Krol rules are intended to apply to IN PARTICULAR people who have of necessity disclosed mental health information during their trial.

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

I believe Taylor obtained MBs consent as the defendant, to have the trial televised before Taylor ruled that TV cameras could cover the trial.

The defendant in a criminal trial has rights that are not necessarily afforded to other people such as witnesses.

I appreciate the legal experts such as Ekat and Einhorn who have contributed on various issues today.

So glad you appreciate the contributions of of legal professionals who you previously have denigrated. I also appreciate their contributions! Are you still ignoring the laws I cited?

I have not denigrated the legal professionals unless you consider daring to disagree with them as “denigrating them”.

I don’t equate disagreeing with someone with “denigrating” someone.

It’s a discussion board. People disagree.

I responded on the issue of the Krol rules that you posted.

[ekat]

@lazaret

I see a higher court has apparently already decided vis a vis the court calendar versus 14th amendment and found the court calendar on the losing side of that

Interestingly, that case also addresses Barisone being unable to cross-exam the author of the footnote in the report Judge Taylor used, and that commitment must be based on expert witness testimony.

[LilRanger]

@lazaret

I see a higher court has apparently already decided vis a vis the court calendar versus 14th amendment and found the court calendar on the losing side of that.

Will no one think of the Calendars?!?!

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@erinmeri

@CurrentlyHorseless

I believe Taylor obtained MBs consent as the defendant, to have the trial televised before Taylor ruled that TV cameras could cover the trial.

The defendant in a criminal trial has rights that are not necessarily afforded to other people such as witnesses.

I appreciate the legal experts such as Ekat and Einhorn who have contributed on various issues today.

Cool. So, you still haven’t read the statutes? Understood.

I read the excerpts you posted. Did you not understand my response?

[Unfforgettable]

I have a question for the EIM .

What is the point or purpose of trying to educate or even help the perpetually and probably permanently obtuse?

[CurrentlyHorseless]

@Long_Time_Lurker

@erinmeri

, of COURSE Barisone’s mental health issues had to be made public in order to mount a defense of NGRI, by definition they would have had to be. For Taylor to say that means Barisone’s rights to privacy are waived is absurd on the surface. If it weren’t, why would it be necessary for procedure to codified, i.e. NJ Rules 3:19-2 and 4:74-7, that state otherwise for all but those acquitted of murder?

To take this one step further, I would think that EVERY defendant pleading NGRI would need to provide mental health information during their trial. And since these are the ONLY people who will then have Krol hearings in the months/years after their trial, it is reasonable to conclude that the Krol rules are intended to apply to IN PARTICULAR people who have of necessity disclosed mental health information during their trial.

Obviously he needed to provide psychiatric information to the court.

He didn’t need to agree to TV cameras.

[erinmeri]

@hut-ho78

If HIPAA doesn’t apply and the state law states that NGRI KROL hearings must be by camera except murder (and by default attempted murder-you don’t get credit if they live) then in this instance Judge Taylor is complying.

I don’t think he blew through the first 90 days and ignored that requirement, I think the court calendars were that overwhelmed by lack of funding and staffing and then add Covid with those delays and even more limited courts to meet Covid spacing. I think that was beyond his contro

Is it fun arguing with a lawyer?

[lazaret]

@Unfforgettable

What is the point or purpose of trying to educate or even help the perpetually and probably permanently obtuse?

At least for me, it’s for the benefit of other people reading more than anything. You cannot convince those who are not open to being convinced. You can, however, post information that can be used by others to form their own opinions.

[ohnoO]

@Unfforgettable

I have a question for the EIM .

What is the point or purpose of trying to educate or even help the perpetually and probably permanently obtuse?

My bad, sorry! But I did stop after just one itty-bitty post and will do my best to not falter again—As God is my Witness!

[LilRanger]

@Long_Time_Lurker

To take this one step further, I would think that EVERY defendant pleading NGRI would need to provide mental health information during their trial. And since these are the ONLY people who will then have Krol hearings in the months/years after their trial, it is reasonable to conclude that the Krol rules are intended to apply to IN PARTICULAR people who have of necessity disclosed mental health information during their trial.

And to add to this excellent point, the legislature, when writing the commitment statutes were likely aware of the criminal statutes and wrote commitment statutes specifically closing them to public scrutiny except in the case of murder.

[erinmeri]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I do not have you on the forum “ignore” feature, but also don’t feel compelled to respond to you. Don’t be shocked if I ignore you the old fashioned way.

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m assuming Stone would not have filed his motion if it had zero chance of success. I also did not see either Deininger or Silver countering Stone’s motion with the argument you gave there.

I read the NJ rules that you posted. As I am not a lawyer, with even a Google U law degree, I’m assuming that Judge Taylor understands the rules and laws on people committed via NGRI better than you or I do.

But maybe you know better than Taylor, and the next appeal will succeed.

You make a LOT of assumptions. Explains a lot. Strange how you believe so strongly in them. Le sigh.

[lazaret]

I see that the State of NJ has suspended all civil and matrimonial matters in two vicinages - covering about 6 counties - as of Feb 21.

I expect that this will result in at least one party to one of those matters suing the governor for being unable to manage to appoint any judges. That should make for a good time with appellate hearings centering around court system delays impacting due process, especially after the impacts of covid.

I’d certainly like to read the briefs.

[lazaret]

@CurrentlyHorseless

I’m not a lawyer, but I’m assuming Stone would not have filed his motion if it had zero chance of success.

Happens all the time. The “hail mary” if you will. Also sometimes referred to as the spaghetti test - throw things to the wall and see what sticks.

Some attorneys choose to waste time in such a way. After all, they’re paid by the hour.

[hut-ho78]

Thank you.