Jason Young to get new trial #4

[MyBelle]

Actually, it is in the oath all jurors take. They are to judge the evidence without any prejudice. A prosecutor or cop's theory that a guy is guilty isn't evidence at all just as opening and closing arguments are not evidence. [modsnip] Jeez, even after it was over he announced that Michelle died as a result of domestic violence even though there was no evidence whatsoever that Jason ever physically assaulted Michelle. This case is so over the top as far as a miscarriage of justice, it is ridiculous. in my humble opinion.

Oath for Petit Juror
You do solemnly swear (affirm) that you will truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in civil or criminal actions that come before you and give true verdicts according to the evidence, so help you, God

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_11.pdf

Here is the link to the Judge's comments. http://raleightelegram.com/201404026068


The Judge also presided in the civil case the appellate court deemed highly prejudicial and should not have been admitted.

“It seems fundamentally unfair for the jury to be advised that a judgment has been entered declaring him the killer,” his attorney also told the appeals court.

Young’s attorney also said that the Wake County Courts made an error when they entered evidence from Jason Young’s custody battle regarding his daughter, which was another civil case.

The three judge panel on the North Carolina Court of Appeals evidently agreed and in a 58 page opinion published at the end of March, they said that those items should not have been introduced at the murder trial.

“This evidence also severely impacted defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial,” said the judges in their published opinion. “This is similar to the prejudice that a jury has when it learns a defendant is previously convicted of charged offenses.”


Judge Stephens said in his address to the court that he believed that Young exhibited a pattern of domestic abuse that ultimately culminated in her death.

“This case is similar to every other case of domestic violence that has been played out in this courtroom in years past,” said Stephens in 2012. “The assailant that actually killed Michelle Young inflicted a beating on her. This woman wasn’t just murdered, she suffered a beating the likes of which we seldom see. This woman was punished.”

....“I would say the evidence in this case suggests that Mr. Young has a significant mental health issue, he has significant anger management issues and significant issues involving women,” said Judge Stephens. “All of this evidence is clear and consistent and unmistakable in a pattern of domestic violence.”

 

[MyBelle]

Actually, it is in the oath all jurors take. They are to judge the evidence without any prejudice. A prosecutor or cop's theory that a guy is guilty isn't evidence at all just as opening and closing arguments are not evidence. [modsnip] Jeez, even after it was over he announced that Michelle died as a result of domestic violence even though there was no evidence whatsoever that Jason ever physically assaulted Michelle. This case is so over the top as far as a miscarriage of justice, it is ridiculous. in my humble opinion.

Oath for Petit Juror
You do solemnly swear (affirm) that you will truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in civil or criminal actions that come before you and give true verdicts according to the evidence, so help you, God

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_11.pdf

Link to Judge's conclusion about domestic violence and Jason is mentally ill:

“I would say the evidence in this case suggests that Mr. Young has a significant mental health issue, he has significant anger management issues and significant issues involving women,” said Judge Stephens. “All of this evidence is clear and consistent and unmistakable in a pattern of domestic violence.”
http://raleightelegram.com/201404026068

Link to what is not allowed in opening statements and closing arguments:
http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjm_38.htm
Various courts have held that improper remarks during opening statements and closing arguments include:

Addressing a juror by name;
Stressing irrelevant facts or issues;
Attacking a party, counsel or a witness;
Making disparaging comments;
Stating a fact in opening statement that will not be proven;
Instructing jurors on the law;
Misstating the law;
Expressing a personal belief in the merits of the client’s case;
Making prejudicial or inflammatory remarks;
Mentioning settlement discussions;
Discussing subsequent repairs; and
Mentioning the wealth or poverty of a party.
Kent Sinclair, Trial Handbook § 3.08, 5.05 (2d ed. 1990).

 

[MyBelle]

I did. Read both of them. Then read the jury consultants reviews of the grad students study.
Once again, I listened to the evidence presented in both trials. I evaluated the defendant's testimony in the first trial. I didn't believe a word he said.
No matter how you try to undermine or parse my reasoning, it doesn't matter. I know why I came to that decision and that's all that matters. And it is unwavering. Nothing you say will change my mind.
And you tend to confuse the basics, no disrespect intended. MM never slept with the defendant in his house.
As for extramarital affairs are only relevant if proved that the person wants out? He said he was done. He sent an email to his long lost love just 6 weeks before his wife was murdered. What do you want? A missive saying he was gonna kill his wife because he wanted out? You are of the mind set that LE was looking to nail him. Until you move away from that narrow minded, tunnel vision I don't see us making any progress in any further discussion.

In the six weeks after he sent the email, had either Jason or Michelle filed for divorce? No. An email that was never opened, read or responded to is not evidence he intended to murder his wife. People get upset and announce they are done with a marriage every day of the year and couples do get divorced. Murder is not necessary. What you seem to be clinging to is the highly prejudicial allegations and opinions about his extramarital affairs that were not supposed to be introduced to the jury.


JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Oh please! Let's hear the exculpatory evidence. Where is it? And bringing in borderline sexism? Are you kidding me? Let's stick to what is real. I'm reminded of the OJ juror after the verdict. You want this to be about domestic violence then take it down the hall to that courtroom! MOO.

exculpatory evidence: unknown DNA found at the crime scene. An iron-clad alibi supported by gas and hotel receipts.

I agree with the other poster's opinion that there is borderline sexism. The "husband did it" has been the mantra of pundits since the OJ trial. It's kinda stale but some still do it and it was done in this case even though the husband was out of state at the time of the murder. There seems to have been a concerted, collaborative effort by the Sheriff, prosecutor and the Judge to ensure a conviction. The prosecutor is now gone and I'm betting the same Judge will not hear this case a fourth time.

There was a history of domestic violence in OJ's relationship with Nicole. No evidence of domestic violence in the Youngs' relationship was introduced at Young's trial. If I missed it, please link it. I think all they could muster was an old girlfriend who tussled over an engagement ring and then got it right back.

JMO

 

[oenophile]

Just responding to your post that you wish it was. It isn't as you stated. And then I thanked you. Nothing more nothing less.

ok

 

[oenophile]

Oh please! Let's hear the exculpatory evidence. Where is it? And bringing in borderline sexism? Are you kidding me? Let's stick to what is real. I'm reminded of the OJ juror after the verdict. You want this to be about domestic violence then take it down the hall to that courtroom! MOO.

Two sets of shoeprints. Gas mileage inconsistent with JY being the killer. Cigarette butts on the floor. Missing jewelry. No blood in the car. JY being awake and not dead tired all day.

And yes, absolutely borderline sexism. The loathing and hatred of JY, and the unwillingness to consider that he too may be a victim of this crime, indicates to me something deeper than simply having concluded that he probably did it. And speaking of domestic violence, It reminds me of people that claim every argument in a marriage is evidence of a man committing domestic abuse.

 

[oenophile]

And yes, absolutely borderline sexism. The loathing and hatred of JY, and the unwillingness to consider that he too may be a victim of this crime, indicates to me something deeper than simply having concluded that he probably did it.

And just one other clarification, the "loathing and hating of JY" comment wasn't directed at citygirl, but rather a general statement.