State vs Jason Lynn Young 6-22-11

[borndem]

I'm going to think on this a bit. I see criticism of the pros and their cross of the def/witness. I know the first time I saw a real case, just a one day testimony and the closings (missed the pros rebuttal closing). I was disappointed at the lack of drama. I guess I thought it'd be much more dramatic with exclamations and such. But, it's the content of the words that are important and sometimes what isn't said.

I'm confident this pros asked the important questions they needed his reaction to in front of this jury. They even got him to become defensive and he said, 'it's already been testified to......' a few times. He didn't mind answering his PREPARED questions by the def attorney, but REALLY DISLIKED the (unprepared) unexpected questions from the opposition.

I don't think it was necessary for the pros to get him all riled up. He seemed to loose enough of his temper, just a little, to show he's still got issues and I doubt the jury missed that. I think the pros will tie everything up tomorrow in closing. They'll outline everything to make it understandable by the jury to attempt to insure they come back with a verdict of GUILTY! and this will be for Michelle and her unborn baby.

Nobody knows what the jury will decide. During the OJ trial many thought he'd be found guilty which was why there was such shock across the country with the NG.

I honestly feel for the jurors on this case. I bet none of them will be able to sleep tonite. What a heavy burden. With a man's life on the line and they will decide! Not only that, their decision will mean either justice for the victims or a grave injustice that MAY never be righted, IF he's found innocent, yet, unknowing to them he's guilty.

What a hard place to be in. We can say we think he's guilty and it doesn't mean anything in the big scheme of things. Yet, THEIR opinions will matter for this case and will affect SCORES of people's lives.

Tomorrow should be an interesting day. Let's hope both sides do a good job and the decision is just.

JMHO
fran

PS...of course, I'm sure I don't need to add, I think he's GUILTY!?

Thanks for balancing this bunch! And another round of :clap::clap:.

 

[borndem]

I hope the jury caught the irony of the very last question the pros asked of JY!

In the cross, the def asked JY about the instructions about the medication found on the shelf of C. The def went over how the cautions talked about how the medication CAN cause HYPER activity, and it wouldn't be something one would give to a child to cause drowsiness. JY agreed and said that was one of their marketing points to doctors.

The pros got up and pointed to the section of the warnings that says the "the medication can cause drowsiness".....................JY said yes!

Hypocrisy! Show only 1/2 the story. I hope the jury didn't miss that point!

JMHO
fran

Dirty pool, all right, and yes, I noticed it. Holt asked the question almost like she was asking about the weather. Smooth. She did score one there, bless her bones.

At least the ADAs will get the last word.

And , yes, the jurors are prolly finding it hard to sleep tonight. They get very proprietary about their job; it is their evidence; they are the ones who decide; and they acquire a bit of pride about it. This usually makes them alert and discerning about what they see & hear. Let's hope this jury has been there for a while.
I hope the ADAs have plenty of midnight oil.... They have a heavy load, too.

And the Youngs are probably tired from beaming with pride about how well their Mr. Best All Around did on the stand today....

 

[gracielee]

Oh yes, glee - I grew up about 35 miles from Ft. Bragg, so I know this case well. And yes, MacDonald killed his family. No doubt in my mind. Talk about a sociopath and narcissist... textbook case...

And yes, James Blackburn was the chief prosecutor. I know him -- he's still here in Raleigh. MacDonald was his first case as a federal prosecutor. Another Southern gentleman and brilliant. And another one who's easy on the eyes. Very fine individual.

Anyway, on with the show...

If In The Future:
You light a candle…
Light one for them
In The Future:
If you say a prayer…
Say one for them
If In The Future:
You should shed a tear….
Shed one for them

From the closing argument to the jury delivered by assistant U.S Attorney James L. Blackburn in the trial of Jeffrey MacDonald

I'm glad to hear he is doing well, was so sorry when he hit that bad spell. Glad to hear things are up for Mr. Blackburn. Always admired him. Boz Z. reminds me of the passion and idealism often lacking these days.

 

[Luna24]

hi all - trying to catch up on some of the important testimony until the weekend when I really catch up..must admit I skipped ahead a bit to JY.

Some quick points that I noticed during his direct:

-- first real obvious lie in Part 1 was the denial of throwing the remote. Enough eye blinking, lip smacking and water chugging -- not very subtle.

-- constant mentions of michelle being dramatic..and if she wasn't being too dramatic, she was too hormonal..he on the other hand was not carrying a child, and not dramatic because he could screw a bunch of women and work out his frustrations that way

--he'd better hope nobody on that jury is originally from NY or that area..I am from that area and I didn't like the inference that Linda was from NY and it made sense that she was domineering. Michelle was from NY too idiot.. I felt like I was listening to gojo calling us damn yankees again..

--and why is MY's dad Mr Fisher and her mom is Linda? different respect level there for the man vs the woman?

--he really felt michelle had to work out her other issues first before they saw a counselor but he didn't have any while he was screwing her friend of 10 years as well as others.

--seemed like the DT didn't expect the "jason hated smoking" to come in so they had to throw that computer charger in there. still WAY too much explaining about how he didn't need the key card -- how would he know the door had no force unless he tried to leave first with the card in his hand? why is it so hard to bring the key card with you? not believable in the slightest..

--and if he was only going to be on the laptop for 45 minutes to an hour - is the charger even necessary?

--if he was just going into the ebay items to see about the cost near the close of the auction, why did he need to print it? why not just pull it up and say - "oh, that one will cost about $100 and this one $150" no..he needed to print it for his alibi.

and DT made a mistake asking about printing the mapquest second, instead of first.


I was a little surprised about the cross of BH which I'm half way through now...I read through the posts here and I didn't see the mention of his ex-fiancee the letter, or the emails where he declared his love for MM?

sorry for the long post. yikes. I just have to add that he disgusts me even more listening to him..if I didn't need to go to sleep, I'd go take a shower...

 

[Luna24]

Please excuse how behind I am. but I just got to the cross where he's going on and on that he was so angry because Michelle lied to him about deleting a message...which to everyone else is obvious that he just wanted his guy time...

but does he have any concept at all that every time he talked to MM (or the other women) he was lying to Michelle? :banghead: you'd think his DT would have clued him in a bit more on this part...

 

[Byrdbrain]

I'm confused on the point the Judge was discussing at the end of the hearing today, after the jury was dismissed.

So, my understanding is that it is a Constitutional Right to not make statements to LE, Fifth Amendment thing. But there's no provision about the POI or suspect or def talking to anyone else.

I think I'm understanding that the judge usually does not have to bring this up to the jury during instructions, because the jury is USUALLY not told the def did NOT talke to LE. But, this def brought up the 'not talking to LE' during opening and the def opened the door wider during his testimony.

Now the pros wanted the judge to make a differential between talking to LE and talking to family, friends, anyone else, about the case. THAT is NOT covered under the Constitution, talking to anyone other than LE.

The judge is thinking on that over night and it will be discussed at the beginning of court tomorrow.

Does anyone else have a take on this?

The pros said something about one thing hadn't been decided by the Supreme Court, just one local decision so the judge wasn't obliged by that, necessarily.

hmmmm........
fran

As I understood the discussion, the defense wants the judge to instruct the jury that the defendant's decision not to talk to anybody, whether law enforcement or not, cannot be considered by the jury as an indication of guilt. The judge correctly stated that the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent only extends to questioning by/conversations with law enforcement officials and not to family, friends, etc. So, it sounds like the judge will give an instruction that the defendant's decision not to talk to law enforcement cannot be considered as substantive evidence of guilt, but I don't think he will go on to specifically say that the defendant's decision not to talk with others can be used as such--he will just limit the instruction to law enforcement, and the prosecution will hope that the jury is savvy enough to realize that they can infer guilt from silence to others.

Judge Stephens also pointed out that in most cases a defendant's pre-arrest silence (with law enforcement anyway) is probably not even brought to the jury's attention during trial, so Fifth Amendment jury instructions are often not even needed. In this case, there was extensive testimony about Jason's silence, including testimony by Jason himself, so the Judge considers his decision on how to instruct the jury on this issue to be very important, which explains why even though he seems to be set in his decision, he is going to do a little due diligence tonight and make a final ruling first thing in the morning.

 

[Byrdbrain]

Please excuse how behind I am. but I just got to the cross where he's going on and on that he was so angry because Michelle lied to him about deleting a message...which to everyone else is obvious that he just wanted his guy time...

but does he have any concept at all that every time he talked to MM (or the other women) he was lying to Michelle? :banghead: you'd think his DT would have clued him in a bit more on this part...

I haven't read back through all the posts, so someone may have already noted this, but I thought there was an inconsistency between Josh Dalton's and Jason's testimonies about the deleted message.

Josh testified that he called Jason on Thursday night about the travel plans for Friday morning, because Josh's wife had never heard from Michelle after leaving a message about giving her a ride. Josh made it sound like his call was the first that Jason had heard about this message and when Michelle said she never got and the Daltons insisted that the message was left, Jason (and the Daltons) concluded that Michelle deleted the message. I even got the idea that it was a cell phone or work phone message to Michelle, although this was not specific.

The way Jason told the story, he had already heard the message (on the home phone I guess) and left it on the machine for Michelle who then must have deleted it and acted like she never heard it.

A slight and probably in the scheme of things unimportant discrepancy, but definitely one I noticed.

 

[jilly]

I think the jury instruction about the possibility that Jason was a party to others committing the crime will be the one that the jury follows. Defense objected to it, and I can understand why, but I think that is how the jury can find guilt.

So the defense is objecting to it as well as the pros.

So....if I understand it.....if you're a party to a murder then you can be convicted of 1st degree? I'm fine with this.

I thought the onus was on the prosecution to prove who actually commit the murder.

I like the Judge. He's the one who brought this up and I think it's an olive branch to the pros.

Do you remember the Louise Woodward 'nanny' case? This reminds me of the same. The Judge there offered the pros 2nd degree and they refused. Woodward was acquitted.

 

[jilly]

I'm happy the pros gets to give their closing last!

 

[otto]

So the defense is objecting to it as well as the pros.

So....if I understand it.....if you're a party to a murder then you can be convicted of 1st degree? I'm fine with this.

I thought the onus was on the prosecution to prove who actually commit the murder.

I like the Judge. He's the one who brought this up and I think it's an olive branch to the pros.

Do you remember the Louise Woodward 'nanny' case? This reminds me of the same. The Judge there offered the pros 2nd degree and they refused. Woodward was acquitted.

Prosecution didn't object, but defense did. The judge is most likely going to include the instruction that the jury can consider that if Jason acted with someone, even if he wasn't the murderer, then he can be found guilty. The defense presented caselaw and the Judge will consider it this evening and then present his instructions to the lawyers in the morning ... before presenting them to the jury. I was surprised when I heard the judge say this because, as the defense stated, there was no connection between Jason and an accomplice (eg: phone calls, pay off etc.).

 

[annalyzer]

I'm only on part 3 listening to this guy (sidenote - my curio cabinet is now shiny and sparking).

I just have to say, I can tell porkie pies a mile away. All he needed to do was throw in the SIM card argument (ala Casey Anthony). All those dropped calls, missed calls, getting lost, going down to get a newspaper at midnight? WOT? Didn't he just finish watching some game on the pooter, but needed a newspaper to get stats? Yah right.

Oh, and what about all the open/closed/locked doors. In-out-in-out-in-out. He was incredibly busy that night smoking, not smoking, reading a paper, not reading a paper (too windy).

On another note, he is a good inmate witness. Probably the best I've seen in a long while. The last one I recall, was the Susan Wright case, where she tried to defend stabbing her husband 193 times. That was a trainwreck.

The boys are playing the x-box now, so I can't really pay attentin until tomorrow. But I am really curious to see the outcome of this one!

Thanks everyone!

MOO

Mel

lol what was all that about the wind anyway? the great big long story of how he lit his cigar.

 

[cody100]

For those so critical of BH, I think I should remind you that juries (particularly in the south) do not like to see witnesses torn apart on the stand. For everyone who heard the last trial, complaints came from the jury regarding prosecutor's attack of a witness. So, I will say again that BH had a fine line to accomplish her questioning without possibly offending a member of the jury. That said, there were areas that I thought she would touch in her questioning. I will wait and see how the closing goes in this case before I grade her.

 

[traveler]

Someone just told me Amanda Lamb was on a local radio station and said the reason why BH took it easy on JY is because they didn't want to give him the opportunity to present more lies and doubt to the jurors and have that be the last thing they hear and that his physical behavior during his testimony was enough. That makes perfect sense to me and now I feel a little better about the cross.

 

[cody100]

This ADA team is supposed to be excellent. And, let's face it, there is not a lot of precedent on questioning defendants because they seldom take the stand.

 

[BirdHunter]

Who was this Brooke that he tried to bed in Charlotte? Has anyone heard of her before? Thanks for any info...

At this point I am guessing he had tried to bed everything on two legs.

 

[Madeleine74]

I watched A.L.'s report right after court was out for the day and she was clearly surprised that BH didn't ask more questions. I guess she got her answer before doing the radio show. A body language expert would have had a field day with JLY on the stand yesterday. Would have been like Xmas morning to them.

 

[BirdHunter]

Please excuse how behind I am. but I just got to the cross where he's going on and on that he was so angry because Michelle lied to him about deleting a message...which to everyone else is obvious that he just wanted his guy time...

but does he have any concept at all that every time he talked to MM (or the other women) he was lying to Michelle? :banghead: you'd think his DT would have clued him in a bit more on this part...

The weird thing is he still seemed pissed about it all these years later.

 

[Melanie]

In comparing the ADA in this case to the Anthony case, I have to say I appreciate THIS ADA better. While I understand the need to discredit the witness, is there really a need to attack? Its getting far too ugly in the Anthony case for me, and I found the difference enlightening. Did the ADA bring it home -- I believe so. I did get the impression they were a little taken aback when Jason Young took the stand and may not have been entirely prepared - but that's the chance you take.

After listening to his testimony, I believe he is guilty. Either that, or he found himself doing some pretty shady things on the evening prior to his wifes death. He reminded me, in part, of Scott Peterson.

Oh - and he did seem quite snarky with the ADA, which was probably a bad move on his part (especially in front of the jurors). All that blinking and water gulping didn't help much either.

MOO

Mel

 

[Melanie]

lol what was all that about the wind anyway? the great big long story of how he lit his cigar.

I know, right - he went outside to his car to smoke a cigar and read a paper in the dark? At midnight? Maybe I missed something, but I find that odd behaviour. Oh, and he had to bring a water bottle with him too?

If I had to guess (and I'm new to this case), he left his door open, hightailed it home, murdered his wife, and hightailed it back. But that's just my opinion. There was no cigar, no blowing wind, blah blah blah. He's just a creeper.

MOO

Mel