I agree. When the collective we are thinking we are on the countdown to the Krol hearing, only to see it moved out once again, just imagine how that must feel for MB, LO and those especially close to Michael Barisone.
What on earth is sitting in limbo land, with no treatment, no steps that purportedly ‘move’ him through that system, ever going to achieve? I suspect the answer is, smugness from Judge T and his buddy JK along with ex-plaintiff PopPop.
Do any of you attorney folks know any ACLU attorneys? It seems to me that someone should send them a copy of the latest Go Fund Me update. This entire year has been one long violation of MB’s rights. It needs to be shouted from the highest mountain that all may hear, how one petty judge, who thinks he’s important, can completely mess with another human being, and violate the law to his heart’s content. It’s wrong and he needs to be stopped.
Wow. Seeing the timeline laid out like that makes it clear as day that MB’s continued commitment is punitive.
It really does. This is an utter failure of the both the justice and mental healthcare systems.
No pat phrases of made-up justification (like keeping him where he can get help (he can’t there) or keeping LK ‘safe’) can excuse what’s going on here.
A sitting judge is abusing his position to continue to deprive a person of his civil rights, rights which are clearly spelled out in the Krol rules for anyone with half a brain to read. It is clearly punitive, clearly judicial overreach, and clearly contrary to all relevant laws and regulations.
The amount of public money Taylor is wasting (let’s not even talk about the private money MB is spending addressing this) and the shame he is bringing on his court, his professional reputation, and his state are jaw dropping.
I think I’ll copy this timeline and post it on various social media sites that specialize in news and/or law.
Judge Scherer from the Parkland shooting case was disqualified from the case because she was said to show sympathy for the prosecution. I am assuming this would cover any future hearings regarding the case.
I think it would be hard to judge a case like that but to hug people while in your robe does seem to be a big no no.
I am told that during a trial, in front of a jury, that a judge can’t behave in any manner that conveys they don’t believe a witness and even an eye roll can be grounds for a mistrial.
Do judges get too confident in their roles that they feel they can act inappropriately?
I was also told of horrible things that inmates went through awaiting trial. They had to quickly learn not to talk to other inmates about their case because snitching was encouraged. The guards would tell other inmates details of someone’s case and those inmates would taunt and gaslight the other inmate. Guards would wake inmates up in the middle of the night and take them to a room to try to get them to find out details of another inmate’s case and offer favors or threats in return. Inmates would start questioning themselves what really happened.
Then judges wonder why after a long stay in jail awaiting trial that the defendant looks and acts like they are crazy.
That would be interesting to do. It would be interesting if an attorney versed in these issues took interest, and then they could attend the next KROL hearing and see for themselves, and assess the stiuation.
I find it hard to think that Deininger and Belinkas havn’t consulted such folks already, though.
Yeah, but it’s Taylor. I can see him thinking: “MB is suing his insurance company to cover his legal expenses for an act of violence that he committed. If he acknowledged his wrongdoing, then he would accept responsibility for his actions and for his legal expenses. But he isn’t doing that. Nope, he is still delusional, I’m not letting him out.”
Edited to add that Taylor may not express that verbally but it could certainly be part of his thought process. What he will probably say is something like: “He still hasn’t worked through all the levels at Greystone, so I’m not letting him out.”
I’m thinking differently. Maybe he’s thinking the girl dropped her case by her own volition and she did it at deposition time maybe somethings up. Plus everyone is watching. Let me let him out with limitations.
That is what a logical person would do, Taylor is not that logical.
Ha, you have more faith in Taylor than I do. But girl - I hope you are right! 
I would like to hear the responses from the legal community.
This is a general thought and my opinion only on Taylor’s attitude towards the MB verdict.
I actually doubt that the K’s and Taylor know each other at all. Taylor was a prosecutor (as reported much earlier in some bio material linked in an earlier thread), and as such, I suspect that he identifies much more closely with the prosecution than with the defense. Trial lawyers are out to win, and can be just as competitive as any pro athlete.
For a defendant, any defendant, to get off in any case involving a serious felony might be seen as an affront to a former prosecutor, even one who is now a judge. Yes, absolutely, a judge SHOULD be able to put aside any such bias, but we’re all human, and possibly this case triggered some type of association to Taylor or somehow he identifies much too closely with the prosecution in this particular case.
Then there’s the consideration that Taylor and Balinkas used to work in the same office (per earlier threads). Maybe there is some type of competitiveness between them, or antagonism, who knows? Earlier discussion about one of Taylor‘s decisions that Balinkas was involved with being reversed on appeal is probably something that most judges accept as part of the job though, even if they don’t like it.
My point is, I really doubt that there is a personal relationship between J K, and Taylor. Possibly they do know of each other or possibly even know each other in some fashion, but I doubt that they are golf buddies. I may well be wrong, but that’s how I see it.
That said, it does seem to me that there is real bias on Taylor’s part against MB. Both during the trial, and afterwards, as far as the continued commitment goes. I just think that the reason behind it is different.
Keeping him committed may be more a case of CYA for a judge with any defendant who receives an NGRI verdict. (I was amazed to read in the recent Jeffers article that this is the first time in 30 years a defendant has received an NGRI verdict in New Jersey.) Combine that with even an unconscious bias against a defendant being acquitted, and Taylor decides to extend MB’s commitment at Greystone.
I realize that I may be off-base, and there may in fact be a personal relationship between them, but I prefer to think that the criminal justice system is a little better than that.
Just my two cents.
And how many other patients are there, at Greystone, and not getting therapy?
His lack of awareness of mental illness, depression, etc was pretty clear in his comments about MBs demeanor at trial and the suggestion he was malingering.
It was gobsmackingly unenlightened, considering.
I agree with most of what you’ve written here. Watching the trial, there did seem to be considerable bad blood between Taylor and Mr. B. I mean Taylor scolded him for sharing that he was happy to be celebrating his wife’s birthday that evening. Whether the animosity is due to a successful appeal or if the two just don’t like each other is hard to say.
Edited to correct birthday vs anniversary.
What will be different in the process of the Appeal made after the first Krol hearing and the complaints filed about the judge from his supporters? Weren’t they told that there was nothing wrong with his decisions and conduct?
Will the Appeal look closer at the decisions he made regarding Krol than the committee that reviewed the complaints?
In jail the prisoners cut their own hair or another prisoner does it for them. If the one person permitted to have scissors is denied, or leaves jail, then no one is getting their hair cut.
This isn’t Congress, which does (or did) have access to a barber during normal work hours.
ETA (2022)
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
