UPDATES! Michael Barisone Released! FREEDOM! Plus Insurance Settlement

For those still following along, Michael Barisone, through his attorneys, appealed the original Krol Commitment from last September, 2022. That appeal has finally been set for oral arguments on 10/31/2023 at 11:30 a.m. Finally. M

As a side note, and just a reminder, mediation is tentatively scheduled in his insurance suit for 10/27/23, and his next Krol hearing is on 11/17. Lots of litigation happening here in the next month. Hopefully there is some light at the end of this tunnel.

UPDATE. Insurance Suit has settled.

Notice of settlement 11142023.pdf (75.7 KB)

So, all that remains for now is a ruling on the appeal. What a whirlwind week for Michael!

78 Likes

Thank you so much ekat for the update!

I will be waiting on pins and needles waiting for any news or outcome.

All of my digits crossed for a peaceful and positive outcome for MB.

image

28 Likes

Thank you for the update

12 Likes

Thanks for the update @ekat.

This has gone on long enough. Hopefully we will see some positive movement in next month for Michael!

27 Likes

Thank you for the update @ekat

Hope that light will shine brightly for MB, and all those that love and support him. Waaay too long in this nightmare.

23 Likes

It is Pretzel Mode for me as well. Everything crossed.

14 Likes

Thank you for keeping us updated @ekat!

That is a lot going on. Thank goodness for the GFM to help Michael with all these expenses.

18 Likes

Thank you for the update @ekat :slightly_smiling_face: Hopefully there will be an end to this for MB. :crossed_fingers:t3:

14 Likes

Just a note that oral arguments don’t equal an immediate decision. It could be weeks to months before the appeals court issues a result.

36 Likes

Thank you for that bit of information @lazaret.

I am just glad things are moving forward.

19 Likes

But in the meantime, those arguments will be casting a shadow over Taylor while he has to hear and make a decision on the next Krol hearing and whatever testimony is going to be presented.

12 Likes

Very good point. Thank you for that reminder. It could be quite a while before there’s a decision.

I was just happy to see the oral arguments are finally scheduled.

14 Likes

I am too. I wish there was a stream for this as I would be very curious to see what the panel asks.

16 Likes

Oh, me too. I’d love to watch it. Questions from the panel can be quite enlightening.

12 Likes

Question - if Taylor decides at the 11/17 hearing to let MB leave Greystone (be discharged), how will that affect the Krol appeal? If that panel is still deliberating, will the appeal just be dismissed since a judgment in that case is no longer warranted?

(Not that I think Taylor is going to let MB out without “conditions.”)

8 Likes

The appeal is still the appeal. The appeal can still be decided in favor, but essentially all that would do in that situation is put on the record the appeals court decision that the judge erred with some legal reasoning explaining their position. If he has not been released, I’m not actually clear on what remedies the appeals court has, typically the court returns it to the lower court for a ‘do over’ but I am not sure since this proceeding is extremely uncommon.

I suspect some of the panel’s questions will relate to this, I really would like to know what points of law they are reviewing and applying.

I suppose if he is released prior to the decision, the applicant could withdraw the appeal.

17 Likes

Per the NJ Supreme Court’s decision in Krol, if MB has been released unconditionally, then Taylor’s order would not be reviewed by the Supreme Court. If there are conditions on his release, then the appeal will continue. From the Krol decision:

" Prior to considering the merits of this contention, we must first dispose of a procedural issue. On January 17, 1975, while the present matter was pending before this Court, the Camden County Court authorized the conditional release of defendant Krol, as permitted by our decision in State v. Carter, 64 N.J. 382 (1974). In granting the release, the court imposed a number of restrictive terms upon Krol: he must reside in a “Home for Sheltered Care” in close proximity to Ancora Psychiatric Hospital, continue psychiatric treatment as an outpatient, report regularly to a probation officer, and regularly inform the court of his condition; his freedom to travel is limited; and his release may be summarily revoked should he not comply with the terms of the conditional release order or should his condition change. Thus while the order released defendant from the physical custody of the State, it continues substantial restraints upon his liberty. Hence the principle, stated in Stizza v. Essex County Juvenile & Domestic Relations Court, 132 N.J.L. 406, 408 (E. & A. 1945), that commitment orders will not be reviewed after the person committed has been released and freed of all restraints upon his liberty and property does not govern this case. The present appeal is not rendered moot by the order for conditional release. Defendant still has a real and substantial interest in the validity of the original commitment order. Cf. State v. Parmigiani, 65 N.J. 154, 155 (1974); Bower v. State, 135 *246 N.J.L. 564, 568-69 (Sup. Ct. 1947); Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40, 50-59, 88 S. Ct. 1889, 20 L. Ed. 2d 917 (1968)."

9 Likes

Very interesting. Given Taylor’s past animus toward MB, it seems likely that he will want to impose conditions on his release. But If Taylor doesn’t authorize an unconditional release, he faces the risk of the appeal finding that he acted wrongly vis-à-vis the original Krol sentencing. That rather puts Taylor in a bit of a pickle, doesn’t it?

13 Likes

I have a feeling, if I know judges at all, that most would pretty stubbornly stay the course. You can always be reversed on appeal, and most see that as the legal remedy for when someone else might believe that they’re wrong.

12 Likes

I agree with your feeling re: judges staying the course, but is there not a wrinkle here that, since time has passed, Taylor could do an unconditional release now and still have cover to claim he was correct initially, but now unconditional releases is warranted. I.e., my initial ruling was correct and the subject got appropriate treatment through my confining him to these institutions and now I can give an unconditional release. So, win-win for Taylor: no admission that he was incorrect initially and no further analysis of that decision.

Would that be an option for him?

8 Likes