An effort by Michael Barisone’s attorneys to have Superior Court Judge Stephen Taylor removed from hearing their client’s case did not succeed today, as the judge denied their motion for recusal.
Superior Court Judge Stephen Taylor in Morristown. (Photo © 2022 by Nancy Jaffer)
Barisone has been held in New Jersey state psychiatric facilities since last spring, when the dressage trainer was found not guilty of attempted murder by reason of insanity in the August 2019 shooting of Lauren Kanarek. She is an amateur rider who was a tenant on his Long Valley, N.J., farm. The trial drew international attention and the incident involved was featured on CBS’ 48 Hours television show.
Barisone had been trying to move Kanarek and her boyfriend, Rob Goodwin, off his property as his relationship with the couple deteriorated. He became increasingly distraught over the situation. It culminated in a confrontation between Barisone and his tenants that ended in gunfire, with Kanarek suffering chest wounds. She was rushed to Morristown Medical Center, where she underwent emergency lung surgery and was treated in the Intensive Care Unit.
Lauren Kanarek on the stand during Michael Barisone’s trial last year. (Photo © 2022 by Nancy Jaffer)
Barisone said he did not remember anything about the shooting incident and appeared in court for his March 2022 trial looking disheveled; unshaven, with hair uncut and wearing a wrinkled shirt. He periodically would wipe tears from his eyes and put his head on the table in front of him.
He looked completely different — alert, clean-shaven with trimmed hair and neatly dressed — when he appeared before Taylor in September 2022 for his Krol hearing. That is a proceeding which makes a special finding as to whether a defendant’s “insanity continues” and if so, rules on continuing confinement. The court must grapple with a determination of “dangerousness” as a prediction of future conduct.
At issue this morning were remarks by Taylor about the change in Barisone’s appearance from his trial to his last Krol hearing. Attorney Chris Deininger, who appeared for Barisone with attorney Edward Bilinkas, contended those comments reflected what Kanarek had written in a letter to the court. Deininger maintained that document “contained inflammatory falsehoods.”
Michael Barisone during his 2022 trial. (Photo © 2022 by Nancy Jaffer)
He believes it “puts a taint on the proceedings,” explaining, “a letter like that cannot be unread.”
Deininger told Taylor, “Even a conscientious jurist like yourself, your honor, can’t eliminate from the consciousness what that letter presented.”
Taylor responded, “I have no idea what was said in that letter…the court did not reference that letter at all in my decision on the Krol hearing.”
The defense is appealing the outcome of that September hearing.
The judge suggested the attorney had “jumped to the conclusion” that “because there is one line in there (the letter) that is somewhat similar to the court decision, the court must have been influenced.”
The judge asked how it tainted the proceedings.
Deininger said “the taint in my view is the public’s perception and it arises from the Krol hearing,” pointing out the judge had noted at that time Barisone “could have had his hair cut, he could have shaved for trial.”
Michael Barisone and attorney Chris Deininger at the 2022 Krol hearing. (Photo © 2022 by Nancy Jaffer)
Taylor noted there had been testimony in court that Barisone looked different than he had at the jail prior to the trial, and also when he appeared in court for his Krol hearing.
The judge mentioned psychiatrist Dr. Steven Simring, who testified during the trial, said Barisone was dealing with delusional disorder and persistent depressive disorder.
At the September Krol hearing, the judge ordered Barisone held at Greystone Park Psychiatric Hospital in Parsippany. Barisone was scheduled to appear today for another Krol hearing on his status, but it did not happen, as the court addressed the recusal issue and a defense request to bar press and the public from the next Krol hearing.
It is scheduled for April 25, when testimony on Barisone’s condition will be given by Greystone medical staff and there will be discussion about whether Barisone should be moved up a level on his Greystone status, so he could take short trips outside the hospital.
The judge mentioned the purpose of the Krol hearing is “everything about the demeanor, his mental state, statements made, when they were made; at trial, at the Krol hearing, in the hospital–all that’s relevant to his mental state.”
Deininger brought up a remark by Taylor during the Krol hearing, when the judge said, ” I don’t know if there was malingering during the jury trial.”
The attorney told the judge, “I think that could give the public a reason to question the integrity of the verdict. I’m concerned about that. I’m talking about public perception, not what’s happening in your mind.”
“I didn’t draw any conclusions,” the judge remarked.
“I said, `who knows?'”
The judge said Simring did comment that the issue was, “did the actions of the defendant and his appearance result from the mental illness or from something else?” Taylor asked whether the change in appearance was “the result of improvement in Mr. Barisone’s mental state or is it something else?”
Taylor wondered whether Barisone’s appearance during the trial was “a mannerism simply unconnected to the underlying mental illness that resulted in the acquittal. Dr. Simring seems to suggest that it did not relate to the delusional disorder but to the other diagnosis of depression.”
Deininger asked to have the next Krol hearing closed to media and the public, saying that although much about Barisone’s mental health was revealed during the trial, the Krol hearing represents a new phase and should not violate patient privacy provisions.
The judge believed so much about Barisone already has been aired through live streaming and the media that “I feel the horse has already left the barn.” Citing the fact that it is “a very unique case” in regard to the extent of the international attention it has received, he believes the courtroom should be open for future hearings.
“To close it would lead to a great deal of suspicion,” he said, in denying the motion.
Even a year after the trial, social media is still buzzing about the Barisone matter, with people dissecting the case ad infinitum. During the trial, the people posting were endlessly critiquing the judge, the witnesses and each other, and they continue to do so.
They have fresh fodder because there is an ongoing civil suit by Kanarek and a countersuit by Barisone that likely won’t come to trial for some time, since New Jersey courts are backed up with cases.