State vs. Jason Lynn Young 03-01-12 (A.M. session: DT closing arguments)

[Talina]

judge telling everyone not to talk to the jurors... don't even talk about sports, etc...

says any convo "freaks them out"

says he won't have this convo again...

Yep and he said if he has to have the convo again it won't be a pleasant one.

Now, I'm really wondering who spoke to a juror yesterday (or it sounded like that is what happened yesterday).

 

[jrb0124]

ETA--Saw the explanations. That makes sense, and I am happy he is thinking ahead.

I don't know..."something" could happen at any point with that reasoning. Who's to say a healthy juror Thursday night will remain that way through the entire day Friday?

 

[~n/t~]

BBM, or get their opinions influenced by news/family/internet ... this is not a sequestered jury.

But that's been throughout the trial so I don't think it would be any different. They should follow jury instructions.

 

[Wolfpack]

I don't know..."something" could happen at any point with that reasoning. Who's to say a healthy juror Thursday night will remain that way through the entire day Friday?

Maybe he expects them to be done before Friday is out.

 

[CGW]

I've thrown them out too. I do believe Gracie, but its understandable that many many people would have problems with her credibility.

Regarding the supervisor prompting her to call knowing she embellishes and gets involved - it's one of those err on the side of caution deals. Its not HIS place to determine whether she saw something relevant, but LE's, so let them sort it out. In my job, things get reported all the time - for example, to Social Services - but it's not because I believe or disbelieve what I hear. Its just simply not up to me to make that determination.

I'm curious if LE ever gave CB a polygraph. Not that it's admissable, but I'm just curious if they did this with any of the "questionable" witnesses. Anyone know?

 

[jrb0124]

But that's been throughout the trial so I don't think it would be any different. They should follow jury instructions.

True, but in this case it would be after they had "heard everything" short of jury instructions.

 

[fromageball]

CB reminds me a lot of the older woman in the BC trial that was insistent she saw NC running the morning of her death. She testified how she'd called and called the police department and had been interviewed by at least two officers that I recall. She was IMO definitely in it for the attention and she wasn't going to back down.

I don't think either were in it for the attention. If someone thinks they might have useful information about a crime, then they should come forward. I've never been in the position of having potentially useful information in an investigation, but I'm pretty sure if I didn't come forward, that I would have a nagging feeling about it for the rest of my life.

imo it's up to the LE/attorneys/etc to figure out whether or not my information is useful to their investigation or case, and ultimately up to the jury to decide how credible my information is if I testify.

 

[Boodles]

I don't know..."something" could happen at any point with that reasoning. Who's to say a healthy juror Thursday night will remain that way through the entire day Friday?

Seems to me sequestering them for deliberations would be the way to go. Keep them focused and out of traffic.

 

[Wolfpack]

Seems to me sequestering them for deliberations would be the way to go. Keep them focused and out of traffic.

Then you'd end up with angry and pissed off jurors who are motivated to get this done as quickly as possible so they can go home to their families and comforts.

So much of the jury system comes down to trusting 12 random people to follow the rules, even if they are not monitored.

 

[heidisams]

Good morning all!!.I got home as fast as I could!
I'm actually nervous!!!! Gotta say.... Go State!!!!

Humidor.... my arze!!!!!

 

[waltzingmatilda]

OT, while we are waiting.

I am fascinated by the level of concentration of the court reporter in this trial!

 

[nursebeeme]

looks like we are about to start

judge telling jury to raise their hands if they need a break at any time

 

[jrb0124]

One thing is for sure: closing arguments will play a huge role in the outcome of this case.

 

[Stella5]

It is a natural human reaction anytime someone is murdered to want to seek revenge, to want to seek punishment....

 

[nursebeeme]

dt says it is a natural human reaction to want to "seek revenge" if someone is murdered

(I sooo do not agree with that) :twocents:

 

[Boodles]

Whoa, Klink's statement "it's a natural reaction to want revenge" is ODD. Jason himself detached and didn't seem interested in finding the killer! WHAT A STRANGE FIRST LINE!

 

[ynotdivein]

Klink: it's natural when someone is murdered to want revenge, to want to punish someone... but that natural reaction is one of the reasons we have juries. 12 ppl detached from situation can look at evidence and determine if accused person actually committed the crime... proof BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (his emphasis)

JY did not kill MY and their unborn son and this case remains unsolved...

 

[Prancy]

Can someone please tell me if this jury is aware the reason of the first mistrial? Just curious.

 

[ynotdivein]

Klink: there are at least 10 circumstances in this case that show you JY did not kill MY. the first one is the manner in which she was killed.

 

[jrb0124]

Klink says there are "10 things" which will show that JY did not kill MY.