This case is far too open to public consumption for Taylor’s bias to continue to go on with no consequences. It will eventually bite that tainted judge in the ass.
I, for one, welcome it.
33 Likes
I have to agree that @ekat has gone above and beyond to make things as easy to find as they possibly can be.
For those who do not want to read the whole document here is a screen shot of Michael’s counter claim. It is clear that some people who claim to know what is going on (not you EmmaP) still have not bothered to read it.
@FitzE, it only let me like your post once and it is too good to not scream from the rooftops just how wonderful it is. Great job. So well said.
28 Likes
I’m not baffled. This was the result of friends and favors, golf buds and clubs embracing their own. The bias was always baked in.
Horse trainers don’t typically attend Bar association events or golf club outings. Those people who do attend these type of events tend to develop alliances and friendships throughout the legal community. Perhaps they work on political events together. There are bonds.
19 Likes
Do you have any idea on a timeline?
Because frankly, it needs to happen sooner rather than later.
12 Likes
Horse trainers at the top of the sport bring prestige to their home location. They have some very very wealthy and influential clients who have very very wealthy and influential friends. The money behind the horse industry in New Jersey and Wellington is staggering.
The judge showed impatience when the defense has not followed the rules of the court and been disrespectful to te judge by ignoring his instructions. There were no tantrums. No one was held in contempt. There were no epic judge outbursts as combined and shown on YouTube or Court tv. He shut down the prosecutor as well when he failed to follow the rules of court. LE could not act to evict until they had a court order. MB repeatedly said there were no weapons on the 911 calls.
She should have left if possible to do so and he should not have shot her.
2 Likes
I agree. It is an interesting topic. But in this case it does not apply.
7 Likes
Don’t get sucked in. And don’t forget to donate!
38 Likes
Agreeing with someone is not getting sucked in. Geez.
CH is correct. That rule does not apply here.
It is a very interesting topic, but it does not apply to Michael’s situation. In Michael’s situation it is a case of Judge Taylor simply not following Krol. Period.
Michael was not convicted of anything, so that is why that does not apply.
My goal is to get the correct information out there.
28 Likes
I feel that while ACS may not exactly fit in this case the principle is the same. I think the judge is being punitive in his decisions regarding behavior that was already decided on by a jury and that is what is similar to ACS.
10 Likes
After reading the ACLU’s letter, I agree. While Judge Taylor may not have come out and said, “I am imposing longer time frames because I believe that there was a crime committed”, I think the actions accomplish that end. Whether the ACS can be argued, I don’t know. That’s up to defense attorneys.
25 Likes
Oh, I most certainly agree that Judge Taylor is being punitive. No doubt about that.
He is choosing to totally ignore the rules of the Krol hearing system.
29 Likes
This would be my first choice. But be advised, Satan, that I have a bad back, arthritic hips, bad knees and like to be in bed and asleep by 9:00 pm.
Sheilah
17 Likes
I’d pay some major bucks in order to be able to watch the deposition. Seriously. Would LOVE to see/hear Silver in action. 
19 Likes
I came across this news story this morning, which has no direct connection to MB. But it does show that there are some unbelievably sick and twisted people out there who will go to any insane ends to achieve their goals, no matter how much havoc it wreaks on someone else’s life.
And some law enforcement types who will assist them, knowingly or otherwise.
6 Likes
Can one of the legal professionals on here explain this to me? Why is it called “Acquittal Conduct Sentencing” if it refers to a conviction?
Say a guy has two charges - purely hypothetical here:
Armed Robbery
Felony Murder.
Say the jury convicts him of the armed robbery, but acquits him of the Felony Murder. So, guilty on the lesser charge.
The judge then goes behind the jury’s verdicts and sentences guy according to the guidelines for Felony Murder, the charge he was acquitted of, instead of what he was convicted of.
Basically the judge sentences him based on the conduct of the acquitted charge instead of the convicted charge.
34 Likes
Thanks, as always, for the very clear explanation.
8 Likes
You’re welcome.
5 Likes
Good explanation! Again, I realize MB’s Krol hearing is not the same set of circumstances but Judge T keeps bringing up things that a jury acquitted MB of as a reason to keep him confined reminds me of ACS
Thanks again!
16 Likes
That’s not consistent with what I’ve read.
If a defendant is charged with 7 crimes, and convicted of two, acquitted of the five others, the judge has latitude and discretion on the sentence for the convictions. Acquitted conduct sentencing refers to a situation in which the judge applies a harsher sentence on the convictions by taking into consideration the evidence of the defendants conduct with respect to the other charges, even though the defendant was not convicted on those other charges.
Regardless, it’s not relevant to Barisone’s case, since he was not convicted of a crime, or sentenced by a judge.
2 Likes
