Trial Delayed until at least January

[borndem]

:seeya: Hi ya guys, long time no see. I certainly hope this time around, the prosecution grows some. And if Jason Young takes the stand again, let's hope the cross exam is far more intense. The first time around was a total disappointment. Was hoping to see a new addition to the defense team.:maddening:

:dance:And Hi to you! :wave: Gracielee!!

Oh my, it's gr-r-r-reat :great: to have you back in our merry little band of :websleuther: :detective: :websleuther: :detective: :websleuther: sleuthers!!

We need to work hard to make sure this :liar: "husband" gets :justice: for himself :behindbar for Michelle, for Cassidy, for Rylan, for her family, and for The People of North Carolina !!

Just tell it like it is, gracieee, don't be shy! (AS IF!!!) :cheerful:

 

[gracielee]

What real evidence was presented that proved opportunity beyond a reasonable doubt? Video stills showing him walking down a hotel hallway located hundreds of miles from Raleigh isn't conclusive proof he even left the hotel. The stairwell camera is now a red herring since it covered a fire exit door that, according to testimony, was impossible to open from the outside after 5:00 a.m.

I don't believe it is unreasonable for a jury to expect to see hotel security video that proves he left the hotel and returned hours later.

JMO

IMO, you are attempting do take each piece of evidence in the singular. Beyond a *reasonable* doubt is the total sum of ALL the evidence. Not each single piece of evidence on it's own. It's the sum total of all the evidence. There is evidence that the clothes JY was last seen in were never found. There is evidence that his hotel room door was left ajar. There is evidence that hotel cameras were tilted up. There is evidence that an exterior door was left held open. And there is no evidence that JY ever actually slept in his hotel room. There is evidence that his fingerprint was found in Michelle's blood, and there is evidence that the child was drugged. IMO the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence points towards an extremely reliable circumstantial case of murder. Seldom are murders captured on video. Almost all murder trials rely on a preponderance of the total evidence gathered. Murder is not usually a spectator sport.

 

[Madeleine74]

Waves Hi to the regulars.

by MyBelle: What real evidence was presented that proved opportunity beyond a reasonable doubt?

I guess it all depends what someone considers "real evidence." There's often confusion about what constitutes evidence and then there's a lot of confusion between circumstantial vs direct. Most murders don't have eye witnesses to them, or videos, or confessions.

It's totally worth it to do a little reading on the subject and acquaint oneself with the definitions.

BTW, JLY being granted bail has nothing to do with the judge's personal feelings. There are guidelines they look to in determining amount of bail, if and when bail is offered, etc. Had JLY's family not had the $$$ to meet the bail amount, he'd have remained in jail--it certainly wasn't an insignificant amount, IMO.

 

[happy2binNC]

Just popping in to say howdy to my fellow sleuthers! :seeya: I've missed you these last few months. It's finally time for justice to be served!

 

[gracielee]

Just popping in to say howdy to my fellow sleuthers! :seeya: I've missed you these last few months. It's finally time for justice to be served!

:seeya: Yes, it's been a long time for me, good to see some of the old crowd back again. I've miss y'all. :fence: Anxious to get this trial going once again :woohoo:

 

[NCEast]

From WRAL's 4pm internet news:
Jury selection begins for Jason Young retrial

Michelle Young
Jury selection in Jason Young retrial begins

Raleigh, N.C. — The second trial for a 37-year-old man accused of killing his pregnant wife more than five years ago got under way Tuesday in a Wake County courtroom with prosecutors and defense attorneys selecting jurors to hear the case.

Jason Lynn Young is charged with first-degree murder in the death of Michelle Marie Fisher Young, who was found beaten to death in her home just south of Raleigh on Nov. 3, 2006.

He was arrested in December 2009 and went to trial in June, but a jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict, forcing a judge to declare a mistrial.

During his first trial, Jason Young testified that he was out of town on business when his 29-year-old wife, who was five months’ pregnant with the couple’s second child, was killed.

The state, however, contended that the couple argued frequently and that he didn't want to be married.

He checked into a Virginia hotel on the night of Nov. 2, 2006, and drove 169 miles back to his home, killed his wife and drove back to the hotel, prosecutors claimed.

Michelle Young's sister found her face-down in the couple’s bedroom the next day and also found their 2-year-old daughter unharmed and hiding beneath the covers of her parents’ bed.

Defense attorneys argued that someone else, possibly two people, killed Michelle Young, noting DNA evidence found inside the house didn't match Jason Young.

There was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, his attorneys said. He didn't have time to commit the crime, and even circumstantial evidence showed that he didn't do it, they said.

Jury selection in Young's first trial lasted 5 ½ days, but Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens has said that he expects it to be several weeks this time because of extensive media coverage.

Opening statements are tentatively scheduled for Feb. 6, and testimony, which lasted 11 days during the first trial, could last as long as six weeks.

Jason Young, meanwhile, is out of jail on a $900,000 secured bond. If convicted, he faces life in prison without the possibility of parole.

 

[scandi]

Hi All, It has always remained in my mind is how LE stated Michelle's murder scene showed it to be the most violent one they had ever seen, what was done to her and how she suffered.

I thought WS'ers had this crime all put together except for the size of a shoe found? And there was a feasible supposition as to why that was IMO.


QUESTION: If Jason's fingerprint was found in Michelle's blood, wouldn't that surmount all other evidence in proving he murdered her?

 

[borndem]

Just popping in to say howdy to my fellow sleuthers! :seeya: I've missed you these last few months. It's finally time for justice to be served!

Hello, happy2b! The usual gang is gathering again...and come to think of it, I've never been involved in a re-trial, if that is the proper term for it.

It will be interesting (and more, I hope) to see what is different. From what BH said about the PT's case taking about a month, we should see more real stuff. I am hopeful. New Year, new budget. Top of the pocket this time instead of the bottom of the financial barrel. Go for it, PT!

I did read where Cummings said he would be taking a more active role in this go-round. No doubt, at least IMO, CW read them all the riot act -- and in these days of budgetary problems, now NC/Wake Col has to re-try one??!!! "Not too good, n'est pas?" Cummings has, IMO, the smarts to put on a good case -- it's just that he is slow and tedious. And BH seems to be of the same school. Maybe they'll pep it up a bit. They simply must.

We'll just have to hang on & see what happens.

So glad you're with us in this, I hope, new & improved version. :seeya:

 

[MyBelle]

IMO, you are attempting do take each piece of evidence in the singular. Beyond a *reasonable* doubt is the total sum of ALL the evidence. Not each single piece of evidence on it's own. It's the sum total of all the evidence. There is evidence that the clothes JY was last seen in were never found. There is evidence that his hotel room door was left ajar. There is evidence that hotel cameras were tilted up. There is evidence that an exterior door was left held open. And there is no evidence that JY ever actually slept in his hotel room. There is evidence that his fingerprint was found in Michelle's blood, and there is evidence that the child was drugged. IMO the SUM TOTAL of all the evidence points towards an extremely reliable circumstantial case of murder. Seldom are murders captured on video. Almost all murder trials rely on a preponderance of the total evidence gathered. Murder is not usually a spectator sport.

I didn't suggest murder is a spectator sport. I'm aware of the seriousness of the crime and also the rules of evidence.

You misunderstood my comment, which was about OPPORTUNITY--an element of the crime. It was not proved to the satisfaction of the Judge who decided bail was appropriate or majority of the jury. The hotel did have working security video cameras yet all the prosecution showed were interior shots of him in a hallway and at the front desk.

There was evidence that Young was out of state both prior to and after the murder. Therefore, the jury and the Judge would expect the prosecution to prove he left the hotel and returned to Raleigh and he then returned to the hotel. There was testimony that the hotel's exterior door you mention was closed prior to 5 a.m. and impossible for a guest to open from the outside after that. Testimony was that not only did all the other doors have working security video cameras near them, staff was watching them. I think it is more than obvious the jury expected to see that video of him actually leaving the hotel or returning after dawn.

The only evidence the prosecution showed to support their theory he left the hotel and returned to Raleigh was a convenience store clerk who described the man she saw as short and bald. Young was tall and had a full head of hair. It simply was not enough to support a conviction nor should it be.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Waves Hi to the regulars.

I guess it all depends what someone considers "real evidence." There's often confusion about what constitutes evidence and then there's a lot of confusion between circumstantial vs direct. Most murders don't have eye witnesses to them, or videos, or confessions.

It's totally worth it to do a little reading on the subject and acquaint oneself with the definitions.

BTW, JLY being granted bail has nothing to do with the judge's personal feelings. There are guidelines they look to in determining amount of bail, if and when bail is offered, etc. Had JLY's family not had the $$$ to meet the bail amount, he'd have remained in jail--it certainly wasn't an insignificant amount, IMO.

I think it is always a good idea for jurors to resist doing their own research and wait for instructions. That way they'll know the Judge requires them to give evidence the same weight whether it be circumstantial or direct and this case has both.

In NC, Judges do have discretion about bail. Jason sat in jail for more than a year awaiting trial. After hearing the totality of the evidence, the Judge granted him bail. The Judge didn't have to grant him any bail at all.

JMO

 

[borndem]

Waves Hi to the regulars.

I guess it all depends what someone considers "real evidence." There's often confusion about what constitutes evidence and then there's a lot of confusion between circumstantial vs direct. Most murders don't have eye witnesses to them, or videos, or confessions.

It's totally worth it to do a little reading on the subject and acquaint oneself with the definitions.

BTW, JLY being granted bail has nothing to do with the judge's personal feelings. There are guidelines they look to in determining amount of bail, if and when bail is offered, etc. Had JLY's family not had the $$$ to meet the bail amount, he'd have remained in jail--it certainly wasn't an insignificant amount, IMO.

BBM

Yes, indeed, Madeline74, you're so right -- bail is not a whimsical thing. Judges certainly have discretion in so many things they do in the courtroom, but ultimately they are bound by The Rules.

Nearly everything done in a courtroom by the principals is (or should be) done according to the NCGS. "They have a rule for everything!!!"

If <modsnip> anyone else is interested in reading more about pre-trial bail and how it must be imposed, may want to read through the following, which is excerpted from the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically from

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_15a/gs_15a-534.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
§ 15A&#8209;534. Procedure for determining conditions of pretrial release. (a) (Effective until February 1, 2011) In determining conditions of pretrial release a judicial official must impose at least one of the following conditions:
(1) Release the defendant on his written promise to appear.
(2) Release the defendant upon his execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the judicial official.
(3) Place the defendant in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.
(4) Require the execution of an appearance bond in a specified amount secured by a cash deposit of the full amount of the bond, by a mortgage pursuant to G.S. 58&#8209;74&#8209;5, or by at least one solvent surety.
(5) House arrest with electronic monitoring.
If condition (5) is imposed, the defendant must execute a secured appearance bond under subdivision (4) of this subsection. If condition (3) is imposed, however, the defendant may elect to execute an appearance bond under subdivision (4). The judicial official may also place restrictions on the travel, associations, conduct, or place of abode of the defendant as conditions of pretrial release.
(a) (Effective February 1, 2011) In determining conditions of pretrial release a judicial official must impose at least one of the following conditions:
(1) Release the defendant on his written promise to appear.
(2) Release the defendant upon his execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the judicial official.
(3) Place the defendant in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.
(4) Require the execution of an appearance bond in a specified amount secured by a cash deposit of the full amount of the bond, by a mortgage pursuant to G.S. 58&#8209;74&#8209;5, or by at least one solvent surety.
(5) House arrest with electronic monitoring.
If condition (5) is imposed, the defendant must execute a secured appearance bond under subdivision (4) of this subsection. If condition (3) is imposed, however, the defendant may elect to execute an appearance bond under subdivision (4). If the defendant is required to provide fingerprints pursuant to G.S. 15A&#8209;502(a1) or (a2), or a DNA sample pursuant to G.S. 15A&#8209;266.3A or G.S. 15A&#8209;266.4, and (i) the fingerprints or DNA sample have not yet been taken or (ii) the defendant has refused to provide the fingerprints or DNA sample, the judicial official shall make the collection of the fingerprints or DNA sample a condition of pretrial release. The judicial official may also place restrictions on the travel, associations, conduct, or place of abode of the defendant as conditions of pretrial release.
(b) The judicial official in granting pretrial release must impose condition (1), (2), or (3) in subsection (a) above unless he determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required; will pose a danger of injury to any person; or is likely to result in destruction of evidence, subornation of perjury, or intimidation of potential witnesses. Upon making the determination, the judicial official must then impose condition (4) or (5) in subsection (a) above instead of condition (1), (2), or (3), and must record the reasons for so doing in writing to the extent provided in the policies or requirements issued by the senior resident superior court judge pursuant to G.S. 15A&#8209;535(a).
(c) In determining which conditions of release to impose, the judicial official must, on the basis of available information, take into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; the weight of the evidence against the defendant; the defendant's family ties, employment, financial resources, character, and mental condition; whether the defendant is intoxicated to such a degree that he would be endangered by being released without supervision; the length of his residence in the community; his record of convictions; his history of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at court proceedings; and any other evidence relevant to the issue of pretrial release.
(d) The judicial official authorizing pretrial release under this section must issue an appropriate order containing a statement of the conditions imposed, if any; inform the defendant in writing of the penalties applicable to violations of the conditions of his release; and advise him that his arrest will be ordered immediately upon any violation. The order of release must be filed with the clerk and a copy given the defendant.
(d1) When conditions of pretrial release are being imposed on a defendant who has failed on one or more prior occasions to appear to answer one or more of the charges to which the conditions apply, the judicial official shall at a minimum impose the conditions of pretrial release that are recommended in any order for the arrest of the defendant that was issued for the defendant's most recent failure to appear. If no conditions are recommended in that order for arrest, the judicial official shall require the execution of a secured appearance bond in an amount at least double the amount of the most recent previous secured or unsecured bond for the charges or, if no bond has yet been required for the charges, in the amount of at least five hundred dollars ($500.00). The judicial official shall also impose such restrictions on the travel, associations, conduct, or place of abode of the defendant as will assure that the defendant will not again fail to appear. The judicial official shall indicate on the release order that the defendant was arrested or surrendered after failing to appear as required under a prior release order. If the information available to the judicial official indicates that the defendant has failed on two or more prior occasions to appear to answer the charges, the judicial official shall indicate that fact on the release order.
(d2) When conditions of pretrial release are being determined for a defendant who is charged with a felony offense and the defendant is currently on probation for a prior offense, a judicial official shall determine whether the defendant poses a danger to the public prior to imposing conditions of pretrial release and must record that determination in writing. This subsection shall apply to any judicial official authorized to determine or review the defendant's eligibility for release under any proceeding authorized by this Chapter.
(1) If the judicial official determines that the defendant poses a danger to the public, the judicial official must impose condition (4) or (5) in subsection (a) of this section instead of condition (1), (2), or (3).
(2) If the judicial official finds that the defendant does not pose a danger to the public, then conditions of pretrial release shall be imposed as otherwise provided in this Article.
(3) If there is insufficient information to determine whether the defendant poses a danger to the public, then the defendant shall be retained in custody until a determination of pretrial release conditions is made pursuant to this subdivision. The judicial official that orders that the defendant be retained in custody shall set forth, in writing, the following at the time that the order is entered:
a. The defendant is being held pursuant to this subdivision.
b. The basis for the judicial official's decision that additional information is needed to determine whether the defendant poses a danger to the public and the nature of the necessary information.
c. A date, within 96 hours of the time of arrest, when the defendant shall be brought before a judge for a first appearance pursuant to Article 29 of this Chapter. If the necessary information is provided to the court at any time prior to the first appearance, the first available judicial official shall set the conditions of pretrial release. The judge who reviews the defendant's eligibility for release at the first appearance shall determine the conditions of pretrial release as provided in this Article.
(e) A magistrate or a clerk may modify his pretrial release order at any time prior to the first appearance before the district court judge. At or after such first appearance, except when the conditions of pretrial release have been reviewed by the superior court pursuant to G.S. 15A&#8209;539, a district court judge may modify a pretrial release order of the magistrate or clerk or any pretrial release order entered by him at any time prior to:
(1) In a misdemeanor case tried in the district court, the noting of an appeal; and
(2) In a case in the original trial jurisdiction of the superior court, the binding of the defendant over to superior court after the holding, or waiver, of a probable&#8209;cause hearing.
After a case is before the superior court, a superior court judge may modify the pretrial release order of a magistrate, clerk, or district court judge, or any such order entered by him, at any time prior to the time set out in G.S. 15A&#8209;536(a).
(f) For good cause shown any judge may at any time revoke an order of pretrial release. Upon application of any defendant whose order of pretrial release has been revoked, the judge must set new conditions of pretrial release in accordance with this Article.
(g) In imposing conditions of pretrial release and in modifying and revoking orders of release under this section, the judicial official must take into account all evidence available to him which he considers reliable and is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials.
(h) A bail bond posted pursuant to this section is effective and binding upon the obligor throughout all stages of the proceeding in the trial division of the General Court of Justice until the entry of judgment in the district court from which no appeal is taken or the entry of judgment in the superior court. The obligation of an obligor, however, is terminated at an earlier time if:
(1) A judge authorized to do so releases the obligor from his bond; or
(2) The principal is surrendered by a surety in accordance with G.S. 15A&#8209;540; or
(3) The proceeding is terminated by voluntary dismissal by the State before forfeiture is ordered under G.S. 15A&#8209;544.3; or
(4) Prayer for judgment has been continued indefinitely in the district court. [FONT=&quot](1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 1975, c. 166, s. 13; 1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1134, s. 5; 1987, c. 481, s. 1; 1989, c. 259; 2001&#8209;487, s. 46.5(b); 2009&#8209;412, s. 1; 2009&#8209;547, ss. 3, 4, 4.1; 2010&#8209;94, s. 12.1; 2010&#8209;96, s. 3.)[/FONT]

 

[MyBelle]

BBM

Yes, indeed, Madeline74, you're so right -- bail is not a whimsical thing. Judges certainly have discretion in so many things they do in the courtroom, but ultimately they are bound by The Rules.

Nearly everything done in a courtroom by the principals is (or should be) done according to the NCGS. "They have a rule for everything!!!"

If Mybelle or anyone else is interested in reading more about pre-trial bail and how it must be imposed, may want to read through the following, which is excerpted from the North Carolina General Statutes, specifically from

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_15a/gs_15a-534.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
§ 15A&#8209;534. Procedure for determining conditions of pretrial release. (a) (Effective until February 1, 2011) In determining conditions of pretrial release a judicial official must impose at least one of the following conditions:
(1) Release the defendant on his written promise to appear.
(2) Release the defendant upon his execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the judicial official.
(3) Place the defendant in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.
(4) Require the execution of an appearance bond in a specified amount secured by a cash deposit of the full amount of the bond, by a mortgage pursuant to G.S. 58&#8209;74&#8209;5, or by at least one solvent surety.
(5) House arrest with electronic monitoring.
If condition (5) is imposed, the defendant must execute a secured appearance bond under subdivision (4) of this subsection. If condition (3) is imposed, however, the defendant may elect to execute an appearance bond under subdivision (4). The judicial official may also place restrictions on the travel, associations, conduct, or place of abode of the defendant as conditions of pretrial release.
(a) (Effective February 1, 2011) In determining conditions of pretrial release a judicial official must impose at least one of the following conditions:
(1) Release the defendant on his written promise to appear.
(2) Release the defendant upon his execution of an unsecured appearance bond in an amount specified by the judicial official.
(3) Place the defendant in the custody of a designated person or organization agreeing to supervise him.
(4) Require the execution of an appearance bond in a specified amount secured by a cash deposit of the full amount of the bond, by a mortgage pursuant to G.S. 58&#8209;74&#8209;5, or by at least one solvent surety.
(5) House arrest with electronic monitoring.
If condition (5) is imposed, the defendant must execute a secured appearance bond under subdivision (4) of this subsection. If condition (3) is imposed, however, the defendant may elect to execute an appearance bond under subdivision (4). If the defendant is required to provide fingerprints pursuant to G.S. 15A&#8209;502(a1) or (a2), or a DNA sample pursuant to G.S. 15A&#8209;266.3A or G.S. 15A&#8209;266.4, and (i) the fingerprints or DNA sample have not yet been taken or (ii) the defendant has refused to provide the fingerprints or DNA sample, the judicial official shall make the collection of the fingerprints or DNA sample a condition of pretrial release. The judicial official may also place restrictions on the travel, associations, conduct, or place of abode of the defendant as conditions of pretrial release.
(b) The judicial official in granting pretrial release must impose condition (1), (2), or (3) in subsection (a) above unless he determines that such release will not reasonably assure the appearance of the defendant as required; will pose a danger of injury to any person; or is likely to result in destruction of evidence, subornation of perjury, or intimidation of potential witnesses. Upon making the determination, the judicial official must then impose condition (4) or (5) in subsection (a) above instead of condition (1), (2), or (3), and must record the reasons for so doing in writing to the extent provided in the policies or requirements issued by the senior resident superior court judge pursuant to G.S. 15A&#8209;535(a).
(c) In determining which conditions of release to impose, the judicial official must, on the basis of available information, take into account the nature and circumstances of the offense charged; the weight of the evidence against the defendant; the defendant's family ties, employment, financial resources, character, and mental condition; whether the defendant is intoxicated to such a degree that he would be endangered by being released without supervision; the length of his residence in the community; his record of convictions; his history of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at court proceedings; and any other evidence relevant to the issue of pretrial release.
(d) The judicial official authorizing pretrial release under this section must issue an appropriate order containing a statement of the conditions imposed, if any; inform the defendant in writing of the penalties applicable to violations of the conditions of his release; and advise him that his arrest will be ordered immediately upon any violation. The order of release must be filed with the clerk and a copy given the defendant.
(d1) When conditions of pretrial release are being imposed on a defendant who has failed on one or more prior occasions to appear to answer one or more of the charges to which the conditions apply, the judicial official shall at a minimum impose the conditions of pretrial release that are recommended in any order for the arrest of the defendant that was issued for the defendant's most recent failure to appear. If no conditions are recommended in that order for arrest, the judicial official shall require the execution of a secured appearance bond in an amount at least double the amount of the most recent previous secured or unsecured bond for the charges or, if no bond has yet been required for the charges, in the amount of at least five hundred dollars ($500.00). The judicial official shall also impose such restrictions on the travel, associations, conduct, or place of abode of the defendant as will assure that the defendant will not again fail to appear. The judicial official shall indicate on the release order that the defendant was arrested or surrendered after failing to appear as required under a prior release order. If the information available to the judicial official indicates that the defendant has failed on two or more prior occasions to appear to answer the charges, the judicial official shall indicate that fact on the release order.
(d2) When conditions of pretrial release are being determined for a defendant who is charged with a felony offense and the defendant is currently on probation for a prior offense, a judicial official shall determine whether the defendant poses a danger to the public prior to imposing conditions of pretrial release and must record that determination in writing. This subsection shall apply to any judicial official authorized to determine or review the defendant's eligibility for release under any proceeding authorized by this Chapter.
(1) If the judicial official determines that the defendant poses a danger to the public, the judicial official must impose condition (4) or (5) in subsection (a) of this section instead of condition (1), (2), or (3).
(2) If the judicial official finds that the defendant does not pose a danger to the public, then conditions of pretrial release shall be imposed as otherwise provided in this Article.
(3) If there is insufficient information to determine whether the defendant poses a danger to the public, then the defendant shall be retained in custody until a determination of pretrial release conditions is made pursuant to this subdivision. The judicial official that orders that the defendant be retained in custody shall set forth, in writing, the following at the time that the order is entered:
a. The defendant is being held pursuant to this subdivision.
b. The basis for the judicial official's decision that additional information is needed to determine whether the defendant poses a danger to the public and the nature of the necessary information.
c. A date, within 96 hours of the time of arrest, when the defendant shall be brought before a judge for a first appearance pursuant to Article 29 of this Chapter. If the necessary information is provided to the court at any time prior to the first appearance, the first available judicial official shall set the conditions of pretrial release. The judge who reviews the defendant's eligibility for release at the first appearance shall determine the conditions of pretrial release as provided in this Article.
(e) A magistrate or a clerk may modify his pretrial release order at any time prior to the first appearance before the district court judge. At or after such first appearance, except when the conditions of pretrial release have been reviewed by the superior court pursuant to G.S. 15A&#8209;539, a district court judge may modify a pretrial release order of the magistrate or clerk or any pretrial release order entered by him at any time prior to:
(1) In a misdemeanor case tried in the district court, the noting of an appeal; and
(2) In a case in the original trial jurisdiction of the superior court, the binding of the defendant over to superior court after the holding, or waiver, of a probable&#8209;cause hearing.
After a case is before the superior court, a superior court judge may modify the pretrial release order of a magistrate, clerk, or district court judge, or any such order entered by him, at any time prior to the time set out in G.S. 15A&#8209;536(a).
(f) For good cause shown any judge may at any time revoke an order of pretrial release. Upon application of any defendant whose order of pretrial release has been revoked, the judge must set new conditions of pretrial release in accordance with this Article.
(g) In imposing conditions of pretrial release and in modifying and revoking orders of release under this section, the judicial official must take into account all evidence available to him which he considers reliable and is not strictly bound by the rules of evidence applicable to criminal trials.
(h) A bail bond posted pursuant to this section is effective and binding upon the obligor throughout all stages of the proceeding in the trial division of the General Court of Justice until the entry of judgment in the district court from which no appeal is taken or the entry of judgment in the superior court. The obligation of an obligor, however, is terminated at an earlier time if:
(1) A judge authorized to do so releases the obligor from his bond; or
(2) The principal is surrendered by a surety in accordance with G.S. 15A&#8209;540; or
(3) The proceeding is terminated by voluntary dismissal by the State before forfeiture is ordered under G.S. 15A&#8209;544.3; or
(4) Prayer for judgment has been continued indefinitely in the district court. [FONT=&quot] (1973, c. 1286, s. 1; 1975, c. 166, s. 13; 1977, 2nd Sess., c. 1134, s. 5; 1987, c. 481, s. 1; 1989, c. 259; 2001&#8209;487, s. 46.5(b); 2009&#8209;412, s. 1; 2009&#8209;547, ss. 3, 4, 4.1; 2010&#8209;94, s. 12.1; 2010&#8209;96, s. 3.)[/FONT]

I'm not sure why you directed that toward me. No where in it is there a requirement that a Judge MUST grant bail, which is what I posted.

 

[borndem]

I'm not sure why you directed that toward me. No where in it is there a requirement that a Judge MUST grant bail, which is what I posted.

I apologize for using your name alone on that post, MyBelle -- I simply wanted to show how much legal "rigamarole" a judge has to go through to weigh granting bail or not -- whether it is for a murder trial or something very much less. It's amazing to me what they have to know to just get through one day in a courtroom.

I often look things up in the NCGS and I am often crossing my eyes as I read it. No wonder we see some judges looking things up in what I assume is the General Statutes as the day goes on... And sometimes the question or problem is such that the Court will take a break a little early, etc., to render a ruling on something. It is very interesting to me to read some of the regs while a trial is taking place.

Again, please take no ill will from my prior posting, and we'll see what tomorrow and the next days bring. We may be in this for more than a few days!

 

[gracielee]

I didn't suggest murder is a spectator sport. I'm aware of the seriousness of the crime and also the rules of evidence.

You misunderstood my comment, which was about OPPORTUNITY--an element of the crime. It was not proved to the satisfaction of the Judge who decided bail was appropriate or majority of the jury. The hotel did have working security video cameras yet all the prosecution showed were interior shots of him in a hallway and at the front desk.

There was evidence that Young was out of state both prior to and after the murder. Therefore, the jury and the Judge would expect the prosecution to prove he left the hotel and returned to Raleigh and he then returned to the hotel. There was testimony that the hotel's exterior door you mention was closed prior to 5 a.m. and impossible for a guest to open from the outside after that. Testimony was that not only did all the other doors have working security video cameras near them, staff was watching them. I think it is more than obvious the jury expected to see that video of him actually leaving the hotel or returning after dawn.

The only evidence the prosecution showed to support their theory he left the hotel and returned to Raleigh was a convenience store clerk who described the man she saw as short and bald. Young was tall and had a full head of hair. It simply was not enough to support a conviction nor should it be.

JMO

My reference to murder not being a spectator sport was an attempt to point out nearly all murders are committed in private. Without eye witnesses. Especially spousal murders as opposed to say a robbery or gang bang. It was proven in court that it was *possible* for JLY to have left the hotel, driven back to Raleigh, and committed the murder. In fact, he was late for his meeting the next day. And the clothes he was last seen wearing were never found.

That being said, that was only one element of the crime. All other evidence pointed to his guilt. He was the only person who had motive, and he stated that motive to numerous people before the murder was committed. And IIRC, didn't many of us here, hear the toddler state in the 911 call that 'daddy did it' to Michelle's sister?

Regardless of what we say here, it is up to the jury, not the judge, but the jury to determine the facts of this crime and come to their own conclusion. I don't believe we ever heard what the original jurors thought. I don't recall reading anything they said. If the jury did make a statement, I'd be interested in reading it.

 

[borndem]

My reference to murder not being a spectator sport was an attempt to point out nearly all murders are committed in private. Without eye witnesses. Especially spousal murders as opposed to say a robbery or gang bang. It was proven in court that it was *possible* for JLY to have left the hotel, driven back to Raleigh, and committed the murder. In fact, he was late for his meeting the next day. And the clothes he was last seen wearing were never found.

That being said, that was only one element of the crime. All other evidence pointed to his guilt. He was the only person who had motive, and he stated that motive to numerous people before the murder was committed. And IIRC, didn't many of us here, hear the toddler state in the 911 call that 'daddy did it' to Michelle's sister?

Regardless of what we say here, it is up to the jury, not the judge, but the jury to determine the facts of this crime and come to their own conclusion. I don't believe we ever heard what the original jurors thought. I don't recall reading anything they said. If the jury did make a statement, I'd be interested in reading it.

BBM

Good post, glee! Yes, as you said, most spousal murders do not have witnesses since they so often occur in the home behind closed doors -- but this murder did have a witness, again, as you said. A little girl who was there; a little girl who saw it and heard it, and who talked about it with her aunt while she was on the phone with 911. And IIRC, the "Daddy did it," was on the original 911 call twice. Since the background white noise (or clutter or whatever) was edited out so that MF's conversation with the 911 operator could be heard more clearly, CY's little words cannot be heard on it now , but many of us have heard it....

And I cannot recall having heard any of the jurors comments, either. Maybe there were some comments that you & I haven't heard. :waitasec:

We'll just have to wait and see how this thing goes.... And I guess my wonderful and always purr-feck

housekeeping will go to you-know-where in a handbasket. Any how many more pounds will I gain with this trial???

 

[happy2binNC]

There was a segment about the case on Good Morning America today:
http://gma.yahoo.com/video/news-26797925/jason-young-retrial-the-case-against-him-27916092.html

 

[MyBelle]

My reference to murder not being a spectator sport was an attempt to point out nearly all murders are committed in private. Without eye witnesses. Especially spousal murders as opposed to say a robbery or gang bang. It was proven in court that it was *possible* for JLY to have left the hotel, driven back to Raleigh, and committed the murder. In fact, he was late for his meeting the next day. And the clothes he was last seen wearing were never found.

That being said, that was only one element of the crime. All other evidence pointed to his guilt. He was the only person who had motive, and he stated that motive to numerous people before the murder was committed. And IIRC, didn't many of us here, hear the toddler state in the 911 call that 'daddy did it' to Michelle's sister?

Regardless of what we say here, it is up to the jury, not the judge, but the jury to determine the facts of this crime and come to their own conclusion. I don't believe we ever heard what the original jurors thought. I don't recall reading anything they said. If the jury did make a statement, I'd be interested in reading it.

I think the jurors expected more to be proved than just a possibility he left the hotel. It was possible for any guest to leave the hotel at any given time. I think the majority expected proof of his leaving or returning hours later. It was a great distance, required a lot of time and gas. Security video is just as reliable as an eye witness yet none was shown.

As for the toddler's chatter, it wasn't even hinted at by any of the LE testifying so I guess they didn't hear it or believe she saw anything. I doubt they would have allowed her anywhere near her father if they thought she witnessed him killing her mother.

I don't share your opinion things were proved and nobody else had a motive. I don't see Jason had a motive. He was unfaithful but Michelle hadn't filed for divorce. Eight jurors evidently felt whatever was presented wasn't enough. There have been several horrific murders of women in that area by people unrelated to them in any way.

A judge can enter a directed verdict on behalf of the jury if he decides the burden of proof isn't met.

JMO

 

[gracielee]

I think the jurors expected more to be proved than just a possibility he left the hotel. It was possible for any guest to leave the hotel at any given time. I think the majority expected proof of his leaving or returning hours later. It was a great distance, required a lot of time and gas. Security video is just as reliable as an eye witness yet none was shown.

As for the toddler's chatter, it wasn't even hinted at by any of the LE testifying so I guess they didn't hear it or believe she saw anything. I doubt they would have allowed her anywhere near her father if they thought she witnessed him killing her mother.

I don't share your opinion things were proved and nobody else had a motive. I don't see Jason had a motive. He was unfaithful but Michelle hadn't filed for divorce. Eight jurors evidently felt whatever was presented wasn't enough. There have been several horrific murders of women in that area by people unrelated to them in any way.

A judge can enter a directed verdict on behalf of the jury if he decides the burden of proof isn't met.

JMO

I'm not aware of any other horrific murders of women inside their homes in that area? Can you suggest the names to which you are referring?

The type of murder that was committed against Michelle was a brutal, up close, beating to death. The type of murder *usually* committed by someone close to the victim. Someone with a score to settle, so to speak. Someone with a lot of pent up rage towards the victim.

As for the video proof of JLY leaving and returning to the hotel, the defense has to work with what they have. Juries 30 years ago, prior to the CSI age, were able to come to verdicts without videos. As for 'being unfaithful', I didn't consider that at all. I'm referring to the hate he expressed for his wife, both to others, and in written documents/emails etc. Sure, some spouses cheat, but not all cheating spouses tell others they hate their wife, they hate their marriage, etc. There's a big difference between cheating, and hating ones spouse. JLY never showed any interest in who did do this brutal crimes against the mother of his child, and the new baby she was carrying. Extremely unusual conduct. Even casual friends of victims are horrified, shocked by, and effected by brutal crimes against people they know. Not so JLY.

As for Judge Stephens entering a directed verdict, not a snowballs chance in hockeysticks IMO. I'd be willing to bet my roth IRA on it. :crazy:

:seeya:

 

[MyBelle]

I'm not aware of any other horrific murders of women inside their homes in that area? Can you suggest the names to which you are referring?

The type of murder that was committed against Michelle was a brutal, up close, beating to death. The type of murder *usually* committed by someone close to the victim. Someone with a score to settle, so to speak. Someone with a lot of pent up rage towards the victim.

As for the video proof of JLY leaving and returning to the hotel, the defense has to work with what they have. Juries 30 years ago, prior to the CSI age, were able to come to verdicts without videos. As for 'being unfaithful', I didn't consider that at all. I'm referring to the hate he expressed for his wife, both to others, and in written documents/emails etc. Sure, some spouses cheat, but not all cheating spouses tell others they hate their wife, they hate their marriage, etc. There's a big difference between cheating, and hating ones spouse. JLY never showed any interest in who did do this brutal crimes against the mother of his child, and the new baby she was carrying. Extremely unusual conduct. Even casual friends of victims are horrified, shocked by, and effected by brutal crimes against people they know. Not so JLY.

As for Judge Stephens entering a directed verdict, not a snowballs chance in hockeysticks IMO. I'd be willing to bet my roth IRA on it. :crazy:

:seeya:

Kathy Taft and Stephanie Bennett are two I can remember from that area. Others in the news have been Krista Worthington, Pettit mom and daughters. Far too many murders of women in their homes for me to conclude such a brutal crime could only be done by someone "close" to the victim.

8 jurors formed their own opinions about this case based on evidence. This is the third trial on this case by Judge Stephens so I will not be surprised at a directed verdict.

JMO

 

[gracielee]

Kathy Taft and Stephanie Bennett are two I can remember from that area. Others in the news have been Krista Worthington, Pettit mom and daughters. Far too many murders of women in their homes for me to conclude such a brutal crime could only be done by someone "close" to the victim.

8 jurors formed their own opinions about this case based on evidence. This is the third trial on this case by Judge Stephens so I will not be surprised at a directed verdict.

JMO

Kathy Taft was inside the beltline, in Raleigh. And Stephanie Bennett was miles to the north of Kathy Taft, probably nearly an hours drive from where the Youngs lived in Apex. I thought you were referring to the *immediate* area. Stephanie Bennett's killer stalked her and raped her prior to murdering her. Kathy Taft's murder was also a sexual assault and murder. The other women in different states were also crimes that included rapes/sexual assaults as an element of *motive*. No one besides JLY had any *motive* to brutally beat to death Michelle. There wasn't a robbery nor was there a sexual assault. What there was though, was 'the worst beating' many of those on the scene had ever seen in their careers in law enforcement. And a toddler who was drugged. And the only time Jason Young had EVER called and asked his SIL to go to his house during the daytime, to retrieve a piece of paper from his computer.

This is the *second* trial, and it's up to the prosecutor as to whether or not a retrial will take place. Can you possibly cite a case of a directed verdict by a judge in a similar case? I'm not familiar with any such instances. And in this area, Judge Stephens is one of the most respected judges, who was also a prosecutor himself. I can't see any chance he would deliver a directed verdict in a case such as this one.