Jason will be re-tried October 10

Given it's the exact same team, presenting the same case, he probably has reason to feel cocky. I don't know if the state can learn from its mistakes...or even if they feel they made mistakes to learn from. Yep, I'm worried.

BrownRice said:

He is considered out on bond during the entire trial (he has to show up every day). So if he skips town, even on the last day of trial, they lose the property. With the last trial, the 8-4 for acquittal was pretty surprising. I have to assume he didn't expect it either, so he may go into this pretty cocky with no reason to run.

Click to expand...

BBM
ITA - BRice - That's why I stated earlier on this subject, that I thought he was cocky enuff to stick around and get acquitted this time... But he doesn't just have to show up this first day of the trial -- he's still under court jurisdiction, even tho he is innocent until proven guilty and until the case is closed.

And let me thank you again for your legal explanations of this & other things that help those of us who perhaps know a little but not a lot about the inner workings of the court system.

Just the Fax said:

I disagree bordem....he has to take the stand again.
How else will the jury know about Michelle "giving the shoes to Goodwill", going to the desk to get a paper and "smoke a cigar" outside? He will have to tell us about propping the room door to explain why no key card was used.
Of course he screwed up by saying he broke off a twig to prop the stairwell exit door. The bush is too far for that to be true. He was stupid by not just saying he used a rock (had his DNA). For his story to be true, the jury must believe the camera was tampered with twice in 12 hours and someone else happened to prop the exit door with a rock.

Hopefully Saacks handles the cross in round 2.

Click to expand...

Thanks, JTF, for the reply, and now I must agree with you -- he doesn't have any other witnesses to say what needs to be said in the questions/situations you describe. So-o-o-o, we'll see, we'll see.

The Fishers, especially Michelle, need relief in this thing, and they need justice, simple justice.

BrownRice said:

He is considered out on bond during the entire trial (he has to show up every day). So if he skips town, even on the last day of trial, they lose the property. With the last trial, the 8-4 for acquittal was pretty surprising. I have to assume he didn't expect it either, so he may go into this pretty cocky with no reason to run.

Click to expand...

Thanks ... that's what I was wondering. He may well be cocky, but I suspect that prosecutors will have all their ducks in a row this time around. I wonder if he will read here ... wasn't he reading some forum discussions before?

borndem said:

Thanks, JTF, for the reply, and now I must agree with you -- he doesn't have any other witnesses to say what needs to be said in the questions/situations you describe. So-o-o-o, we'll see, we'll see.

The Fishers, especially Michelle, need relief in this thing, and they need justice, simple justice.

Click to expand...

I honestly just cannot fathom this monstrosity. I just want to pull the blankets over my head and wail, although I heard that doesn't actually fix anything.

I was under the impression that anything that was said by witnesses in the last trial can be used in this trial. For example, the prosecution can simply tell the jury that JLY said he was smoking a cigar, but he actually doesnt even smoke, or think, or use hotel keys, or rocks. You get the idea.

So, from what I'm reading here, JLY could completely change his story, and keep on trucking? Why would he need to restate what he already said if everything said at the first trial is auto-evidence? Or are we assuming that what he said last time will be used in conjunction with pictures/new evidence to merely show he was lying before... to dismantle his character even more (is that even possible? I can't believe I am even typing this right now). Maybe I am not grasping this do-over process.... help needed and appreciated.

Borndem, JTF, Tarheel, Madeline, Otto, and East------ HELP! I'm stuck in Michigan and I have failed at google-ing this chaos.

PS. Keep me updated if there is an exact date for this redo trial, I honestly might just come down and wear my terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, shirt. <<"he gave up his daughter instead of explaining he was "smoking a cigar and getting a paper". He doesnt smoke, and had no means for fire. COINKY DINK?>>

No Coincidence said:

I honestly just cannot fathom this monstrosity. I just want to pull the blankets over my head and wail, although I heard that doesn't actually fix anything.

I was under the impression that anything that was said by witnesses in the last trial can be used in this trial. For example, the prosecution can simply tell the jury that JLY said he was smoking a cigar, but he actually doesnt even smoke, or think, or use hotel keys, or rocks. You get the idea.

So, from what I'm reading here, JLY could completely change his story, and keep on trucking? Why would he need to restate what he already said if everything said at the first trial is auto-evidence? Or are we assuming that what he said last time will be used in conjunction with pictures/new evidence to merely show he was lying before... to dismantle his character even more (is that even possible? I can't believe I am even typing this right now). Maybe I am not grasping this do-over process.... help needed and appreciated.

Borndem, JTF, Tarheel, Madeline, Otto, and East------ HELP! I'm stuck in Michigan and I have failed at google-ing this chaos.

PS. Keep me updated if there is an exact date for this redo trial, I honestly might just come down and wear my terrible, horrible, no good, very bad, shirt. <<"he gave up his daughter instead of explaining he was "smoking a cigar and getting a paper". He doesnt smoke, and had no means for fire. COINKY DINK?>>

Click to expand...

A retrial starts from scratch. I bet he doesn't testify next trial. The burden of proof is still on that ADA and I thought she was incompetent.

It starts from scratch but evidence is evidence whether used in the first trial or not IMO. I think he might testify again thinking it worked in the first trial... being he pulled No Coincidence's blanket over the jurors eyes :maddening: .

dgfred said:

It starts from scratch but evidence is evidence whether used in the first trial or not IMO. I think he might testify again thinking it worked in the first trial... being he pulled No Coincidence's blanket over the jurors eyes :maddening: .

Click to expand...

I don't blame this one on the jury. Sorry.

Oh I blame the jury, HIM, and the prosecution for not presenting the case to prove guilt. Alot of blame to go around IMO.

dgfred said:

Oh I blame the jury, HIM, and the prosecution for not presenting the case to prove guilt. Alot of blame to go around IMO.

Click to expand...

DG, I totally agree with you. It's not any one person/peoples fault. Where I fault the jury is for expecting a bow on the package like in CSI shows. There aren't always fingerprints,hairs, and video footage showing the incident. Its kind of up to common sense and a good thorough view of normalcy to decide how reasonable it is for set events to occur/not occur.

He was seen leaving the hotel and never coming back in because the cameras were moved for the first time in TWELVE YEARS! He is an absolute complete and udder slimeball. For the jury to believe him when he said he was smoking is asinine, especially after what the prosecution presented as MORE than enough evidence to ruin his credibility and integrity as a person.

I understand they have to prove he went home, but when the jury displays that they do not think it's proven beyond a reasonable doubt they are showing that they put more faith in the word of JY than in the gas station attendant. HONESTLY, who has more of a reason to lie?! She does not benefit either way, and in fact it would do her quite a disservice to have to testify, be questioned, miss work and probably pay. Common sense is literally null and void in court any more.

It just is not possible to prove rationality around a circumstance, it is something that it takes critical thinkers to really delve into and analyze on their own. If this case was a rope, the gas mileage would be a thread breaking- but it doesn't make all the other threads of MURDER snap too. The burden of proof that the pros hold is a strand short, but still a rope. Given that he could have driven anywhere, gotten gas anywhere, had it with him, met someone, any number of things, leaves possibility, not proof 100%, but combined with the rest its beyond a reasonable doubt. Just because they really fudged up that aspect by avoiding/omitting doesn't cut the rope in 2.

ADA was bad in delivery and connecting the dots, and I really don't know how MF and LF can forgive them for not really banging on certain parts of the drum. Also, some evidence wasn't explicitly there, such as finger prints, because it was his own house, wife, kid, dog, stuff, they were everywhere. Truthfully, the lack of no other prints wasn't emphasized enough, and that's where the prosecution's delivery faltered. I wish they would walk into the house of a random number of people and test a room for hairs/prints/ miscellaneous dna evidence of humans being there. It'd be interesting to know how many unknown hairs there were in comparison to unknown prints. Hairs can transfer from anywhere. If that isn't obvious enough, then make it obvious. Combine these missing lines between the dots with a CSI skewed perception of what guilty looks like, and we have a hung jury.

MyBelle said:

I don't blame this one on the jury. Sorry.

Click to expand...

I don't blame the jury entirely, BH is a mess, but see below if you think they honestly applied reasonable doubt appropriately.

Definition of COMMON SENSE (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.


“It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.”
~Robert Green Ingersoll

“One pound of learning requires ten pounds of common sense to apply it.”
~Persian Proverb quotes

Just an update here in Brevard. There have been no sightings of JY since being bonded out. That's probably because he and his family know that people here believe he is guilty as he!!.

And I do blame the jury. There is no way to reasonably explain his leaving the hotel in clothing that was never recovered, security camera unplugged, security camera plugged back in by maintenance and then moved, and no keycard recording of his re-entering his hotel room. Really?? All of this happens on the one night in his life that his wife is murdered?? IMHO, I think there were 8 idiots on the jury.

tarheel8600 said:

Just an update here in Brevard. There have been no sightings of JY since being bonded out. That's probably because he and his family know that people here believe he is guilty as he!!.

And I do blame the jury. There is no way to reasonably explain his leaving the hotel in clothing that was never recovered, security camera unplugged, security camera plugged back in by maintenance and then moved, and no keycard recording of his re-entering his hotel room. Really?? All of this happens on the one night in his life that his wife is murdered?? IMHO, I think there were 8 idiots on the jury.

Click to expand...

I have family (sis+) in Brevard and they don't agree with you that Jason is guilty. Jason is there according to them and has been seen all around town and many folks like him and his family. Plus, the testimony was that the hotel camera was plugged back in and there are no missing clothes and that fits with the majority of not guilty verdict.

Please don't trash the jury and call them idiots just because they don't see it the same way you do. These trials are complicated. All the jury bashing is getting carried away imo.

MyBelle said:

I have family (sis+) in Brevard and they don't agree with you that Jason is guilty. Jason is there according to them and has been seen all around town and many folks like him and his family. Plus, the testimony was that the hotel camera was plugged back in and there are no missing clothes and that fits with the majority of not guilty verdict.

Please don't trash the jury and call them idiots just because they don't see it the same way you do. These trials are complicated. All the jury bashing is getting carried away imo.

Click to expand...

I haven't caught up with the thread yet, but the jury is the selected peer group that makes a decision. I have some serious reservations about what happened recently in Florida, but the trial of Jason Young was nothing like that. There were some serious questions about the gas station witness, the mileage that he apparently had, gas purchases and who was seen at the house in the morning after the murder ... there was some arm waving by the prosecution during his trial and most importantly, when the prosecutor had a chance to cross examine the accused, the prosecutor said that she didn't want to ask him questions because she would only be giving him an opportunity to tell more lies. That was about the strangest remark to pop out of a prosecutor's mouth because revealing the lies is her job .. if they were lies, was she not able to reveal that, or what? Why was the prosecutor, in this case, basing the case on the fact that he wouldn't speak and when she had the opportunity to ask him anything she wanted under oath, she crumbled because she couldn't expose his lies? It's almost absurd.

tarheel8600 said:

Just an update here in Brevard. There have been no sightings of JY since being bonded out. That's probably because he and his family know that people here believe he is guilty as he!!.

And I do blame the jury. There is no way to reasonably explain his leaving the hotel in clothing that was never recovered, security camera unplugged, security camera plugged back in by maintenance and then moved, and no keycard recording of his re-entering his hotel room. Really?? All of this happens on the one night in his life that his wife is murdered?? IMHO, I think there were 8 idiots on the jury.

Click to expand...

If he stepped out to smoke a cigar and left his hotel door propped open, and the outsie door propped with a branch, then there would be no keycard recording. Also, the doors weren't functioning properly so no keycard was needed for the outside door. The cameras were tampered with, but it had happened before.

He went to his room, changed, went to the front desk, grabbed a newspaper and a water bottle, went out for a smoke, went back to his room, came down around 6:30 AM, got lost on the way to an appointment, phoned mom about 37 times and then fell to his knees when he was told about the murder. I think the mistake was that he said something about his son first ... not his wife. He can always have more children with his wife, so presumably that should be the more important person to him. Instead, during trial, we heard that he was in the recliner babbling about his unborn son ... that doesn't make sense to me.

No Coincidence said:

I don't blame the jury entirely, BH is a mess, but see below if you think they honestly applied reasonable doubt appropriately.

Definition of COMMON SENSE (Merriam Webster Dictionary)
Sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.


“It is a thousand times better to have common sense without education than to have education without common sense.”
~Robert Green Ingersoll

“One pound of learning requires ten pounds of common sense to apply it.”
~Persian Proverb quotes

Click to expand...

The Jury was Spot On! There were serious weaknesses in the prosecution's case which became painfully apparent when the prosecution had an opportunity to cross examine Jason Young under oath in the courtroom and they stepped down. It is an absolute gift to a confident prosecution to have a suspect under oath, but what we saw was a floundering prosecution that caved and backed down. What's a jury supposed to think? I would think that the case was built on toothpicks.

The more I look through the thread, the more I see that the jury is being attacked for their verdict. In the Brad Cooper case, the jury was Spot On and in this case, the jury pool was the same. How is it possible that the peer group could be Spot On one day, and be completely whacked the next? I don't believe it. The Cooper case was strong, this case was weak. It has nothing to do with the jury, and the case has nothing in common with the Anthony case - simply because the lawyers in NC observed the rules of law. It's hard to accept that the case was weak, but it was. There were holes all over the place and when the defense lawyers closed with the mileage calculations, they were right.

dgfred said:

It starts from scratch but evidence is evidence whether used in the first trial or not IMO. I think he might testify again thinking it worked in the first trial... being he pulled No Coincidence's blanket over the jurors eyes :maddening: .

Click to expand...

I doubt he'll testify at a second trial. The first trial was based on the claim that Jason wouldn't talk ... so he talked. In the next trial it would be wise not to mention the fact that he wouldn't talk as implicating guilt ... so talking wouldn't be to his benefit.

otto said:

The more I look through the thread, the more I see that the jury is being attacked for their verdict. In the Brad Cooper case, the jury was Spot On and in this case, the jury pool was the same. How is it possible that the peer group could be Spot On one day, and be completely whacked the next? I don't believe it. The Cooper case was strong, this case was weak. It has nothing to do with the jury, and the case has nothing in common with the Anthony case - simply because the lawyers in NC observed the rules of law. It's hard to accept that the case was weak, but it was. There were holes all over the place and when the defense lawyers closed with the mileage calculations, they were right.

Click to expand...

I agree with you about the jury-bashing on this case. It was a very weak case to begin with and the jury could not ignore those mileage calculations no matter how big a jerk he was to his wife. I think it would have been easy to convict him if he didn't have the out-of-town alibi.

otto said:

I doubt he'll testify at a second trial. The first trial was based on the claim that Jason wouldn't talk ... so he talked. In the next trial it would be wise not to mention the fact that he wouldn't talk as implicating guilt ... so talking wouldn't be to his benefit.

Click to expand...

Well then, how will jury hear about going out to 'smoke a cigar' and read the USA Today?
The explanation about the HP shoes going to goodwill?
The reason he parked on the side of the building, instead of in front?
Why the net searches for "head trauma knockout"?

Just like round 1, he has to testify, imo.