**Verdict Watch** 3-2-2012; deliberations started at 1016am

[gritguy]

Sometimes murderers do get off, so there's no reason for JY to give up hope yet. It is possible he covered his tracks just enough...

Still, though he can have some hope, he's got to be worried the jury will see through all the lies and, if they aren't the kind to think every prosecution is a crusade against an innocent man, then he may not get away with it after all.

 

[gritguy]

The other possibility is Michelle put the condoms in his luggage....and perhaps a note with it. I know probably far fetched but what if?

I think that would perhaps go towards 2nd degree (??) He hadn't planned on murder but when he went to open up his luggage, he sees the condoms with a possible note saying she knew about his affairs and was pursuing getting a divorce (possible theory only...there has been no evidence to suggest there was a note or that Michelle was the one who put the condoms there)

If that were true though, it still doesn't support 2nd degree. There's no way he drove back 2.5 hours and killed her and its 2nd degree. If you plan the murder even for a moment it is 1st degree. The only way it is 2nd degree is if he came back to argue and it got out of hand. That's the only way 2nd degree would have worked in the BC case.

I can't see any scenario that is 2nd degree. I agree with the defense it is 1st degree or nothing. Also, the PT pitched that as well, since they again focused on the planning.

If JY came back to argue, there wouldn't have been the door propping etc. Guilty doesn't make sense unless it is 1st degree, to me.

 

[Just the Fax]

The more Collins played that VM to the home on 11-3, the more the jury was able to hear it was an obvious alibi cover. "Hey, this is Jay"...rattled off several details he wanted the cops to hear. It was really creepy to hear, knowing he just slaughtered his wife hours earlier.

 

[cody100]

Interesting ideas, JF and n/t. I find the only reason for second degree being offered is to compromise the NG and the G of First Degree. I will be interested to hear JS' explanation today.

 

[gritguy]

Of any scenario of JY committing the murder or not committing it, I am thankful that not even JY's defense team suggested a scenario, without any evidence, that Michelle goaded him into the anger that led to the crime.

Reading it above and finding how distasteful such a suggestion is, I think that was certainly wise on their part. This woman was brutally murdered; why imagine that she pulled a stunt that brought on the attack?

 

[cody100]

If that were true though, it still doesn't support 2nd degree. There's no way he drove back 2.5 hours and killed her and its 2nd degree. If you plan the murder even for a moment it is 1st degree. The only way it is 2nd degree is if he came back to argue and it got out of hand. That's the only way 2nd degree would have worked in the BC case.

I can't see any scenario that is 2nd degree. I agree with the defense it is 1st degree or nothing. Also, the PT pitched that as well, since they again focused on the planning.

If JY came back to argue, there wouldn't have been the door propping etc. Guilty doesn't make sense unless it is 1st degree, to me.

I agree completely. I was surprised that second degree was going to be an option for the jury. JS must have some reason for offering that. Do you have any thoughts on why second degree is being offered, GG? TIA

 

[Talina]

Does the judge have to explain how he sees that 2nd degree could apply to this case? Seems to me that a judge should not tell a jury how a charge specifically applies to a case. I would think that all he can or should do is explain what 2nd degree, the legal definition and instruction but beyond that it would seem to me that explaining why it could apply to this case could be influential to the jury.

I'm like quite a few of you that have posted your confusion how it could apply to this case. I just don't see it either so it would be interesting to hear the judge explain it.

IMO

 

[johnfear]

Of any scenario of JY committing the murder or not committing it, I am thankful that not even JY's defense team suggested a scenario, without any evidence, that Michelle goaded him into the anger that led to the crime.

Reading it above and finding how distasteful such a suggestion is, I think that was certainly wise on their part. This woman was brutally murdered; why imagine that she pulled a stunt that brought on the attack?

I don't put any of the onus on Michelle. She had headed to therapy and was facing some of the most difficult decisions of her life.

What I'm suggesting is: If there is an innocent explanation for the size 10 Franklins at the scene (since they were deemed purchased at DG and DG and stores like it are not open that time of night) I can see this joker flying into a rage, making the drive and killing the wife as clear as day. I could compromise on the 2nd degree for that. I could chalk up and ignore everything else (Luck, coincidence, circumstances) and call it a "crime of stupidity".

There's nothing wrong with a wife attempting to end her husband's philandering in a manner that is not dangerous to her, her child and her unborn child. I have trouble believing she did not know that something was amiss.

Otherwise, the second degree murder considerations looks like a catchall on a case that's already looked like a catchall case. The reliance becomes that jurors have to see the near lack of other evidence as proof.

 

[Bottle Cap]

We know for a fact JY was schtupping somebody out of town very shortly before the murder, and out of town trips require luggage. I don't see why the condoms can't just be left over from that trip. I don't know how many there were, but he might have been overly ambitious on the number he had in there. Ew.

 

[cody100]

Sometimes murderers do get off, so there's no reason for JY to give up hope yet. It is possible he covered his tracks just enough...

Still, though he can have some hope, he's got to be worried the jury will see through all the lies and, if they aren't the kind to think every prosecution is a crusade against an innocent man, then he may not get away with it after all.

I imagine the DT and JY are hoping this time to have some jurors like the last ones that voted 8 NG. I am not sure the last jury thought every prosecution was a crusade against an innocent man. I believe they said reasonable doubt existed. That pesky old reasonable doubt again.

I think the PT closed as many holes as possible this time and emphasized what fitted their story. DT probably lost some ground in not being able to put JY, the Charmer, on the stand. IMO, it will be closer this time, and I have no idea what their decision will be.

 

[johnfear]

I imagine the DT and JY are hoping this time to have some jurors like the last ones that voted 8 NG. I am not sure the last jury thought every prosecution was a crusade against an innocent man. I believe they said reasonable doubt existed. That pesky old reasonable doubt again.

I think the PT closed as many holes as possible this time and emphasized what fitted their story. DT probably lost some ground in not being able to put JY, the Charmer, on the stand. IMO, it will be closer this time, and I have no idea what their decision will be.

BBM. I keep thinking that could be the place they lose this case (DT) but I might have gambled and threw him up there to make a point.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I missed two parts of the closing yesterday. Just enough time to listen!

This may have been discussed earlier, so pardon me if this is a repeat. I understand that JY should have been on video when he checked into the Hampton Inn. Is that the video we saw with him with a carry-cas? Or, was he on video twice (when he claimed he was getting the USA today for the sports scores)?

He had luggage in his car. Is there any video of him bringing the luggage into the hotel? If not, why not?

Is it that the luggage never left his car? If he was gone all night with the door propped open, perhaps there was nothing in their for him to lose to theft?

Never mind! I just heard BH explain...

 

[nursebeeme]

Rule Reminder as we head to Verdict
Good morning everybody! I'm sure everyone is eagerly waiting for the defense to rest today and the jury to be sent out.

I want to remind everyone of a few basic rules:

First - a difference of opinion is NOT a TOS violation. Cheerleading for EITHER side is not a TOS violation, BUT being snarky and disrespectful about that opinion IS.

Second - if a post offends you, ALERT it. Remember, if you respond, it is on you and you may find yourself suffering the consequences for it.

Third - we are moving toward a zero tolerance policy. That means if you are snarky and rude, you may find yourself on TO.

Fourth - the mods will NOT be taking the time to send you pm's and hash it out. You will just see that you can no longer post.

Snarkyness will include avatars and siggy lines that are being used to convey messages you know you can't outright post.

Please keep in mind that ONE side, and only ONE side is going to win here, unless we end up in another stalemate. Whatever the outcome, we will have to deal with it, whether we think it is good or bad. So please keep in mind, that means one side is going to lose. Be a good sport. Don't gloat if you are on the winning side and don't pout and be mean if you are on the losing side. Brace yourselves now in case things don't go the way you want them to.

If you have questions or concerns, PM a mod - DO NOT post them in the thread. Remember all the TOS and rules, please.

Thank you,

Salem

bumping up the rules since another thread was opened during the night

 

[sureLocke]

Does the judge have to explain how he sees that 2nd degree could apply to this case? Seems to me that a judge should not tell a jury how a charge specifically applies to a case. I would think that all he can or should do is explain what 2nd degree, the legal definition and instruction but beyond that it would seem to me that explaining why it could apply to this case could be influential to the jury.

I'm like quite a few of you that have posted your confusion how it could apply to this case. I just don't see it either so it would be interesting to hear the judge explain it.

IMO

I agree it seemed "unfair" to me, I had thought, and I am probably wrong (as usual), he was more or less a referee. I know it is "his/her" and in this case he is the administrator, but I had thought he was only there to insure fairness, not to project anything else into it?

 

[johnfear]

Does the judge have to explain how he sees that 2nd degree could apply to this case? Seems to me that a judge should not tell a jury how a charge specifically applies to a case. I would think that all he can or should do is explain what 2nd degree, the legal definition and instruction but beyond that it would seem to me that explaining why it could apply to this case could be influential to the jury.

I'm like quite a few of you that have posted your confusion how it could apply to this case. I just don't see it either so it would be interesting to hear the judge explain it.

IMO

We should see that in the charge to the jury.

The justice system in NC (and in general, I am sure) runs a weird gambit between trying to make sure major crimes are punished and dealing with "probably innocence". It's a very strange place to have to go to court and Wake County is probably #1 or #2 on the list.

I think the idea is to stay as close to constitutional boundaries as possible but put away as many major crimes/violent offenders as possible.

I couldn't be a part of it from the State/Pros/Judicial side.

 

[nursebeeme]

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/9777083/

for those who did not follow the last trial here is just a bit of info on how long the jury deliberated last time around (12.5 hours)

 

[Wolfpack]

I imagine the DT and JY are hoping this time to have some jurors like the last ones that voted 8 NG. I am not sure the last jury thought every prosecution was a crusade against an innocent man. I believe they said reasonable doubt existed. That pesky old reasonable doubt again.

I think the PT closed as many holes as possible this time and emphasized what fitted their story. DT probably lost some ground in not being able to put JY, the Charmer, on the stand. IMO, it will be closer this time, and I have no idea what their decision will be.

The last jury came right on the tails of the BC trial as well. And that had probably even more media attention than this one does. I don't think it's coincidental that there were jurors who may have demanded more of the prosecution after BC's verdict came down. But, removed by almost a year from that case, I don't know that this jury will have that reminder in the back of their head (for better or worse).

 

[~n/t~]

I raised this earlier. Maybe it was her way of saying: Your bumping days are numbered. Once baby #2 gets here, you got stuff to do. Or, I know you're doing it, don't get me a disease. This would go to the 2nd degree idea, but it cancels out a lot of the pros. case-in-chief and my theory that it was assisted/accompliced.

I agree with you. My theory as well.

 

[Wolfpack]

I agree with you. My theory as well.

EVEN if that's the case, the prosecution would argue that the time it takes to strangle and beat someone to death, is enough time to stop and think about what you're doing. and THAT would make it premeditation. If you remember in the BC trial, they argued, even if it was just a spur of the moment fight, it still took 3 minutes to strangle the victim. That 3 minutes would be premed.

 

[~n/t~]

If that were true though, it still doesn't support 2nd degree. There's no way he drove back 2.5 hours and killed her and its 2nd degree. If you plan the murder even for a moment it is 1st degree. The only way it is 2nd degree is if he came back to argue and it got out of hand. That's the only way 2nd degree would have worked in the BC case.

I can't see any scenario that is 2nd degree. I agree with the defense it is 1st degree or nothing. Also, the PT pitched that as well, since they again focused on the planning.

If JY came back to argue, there wouldn't have been the door propping etc. Guilty doesn't make sense unless it is 1st degree, to me.

Thank GG. That's why I put (??) after my statement because I wasn't sure if it qualified for 2nd. degree or not and thanks for explaining it. With that said, your second scenario could be a possibility. He saw the note and wanted to confront her, drove to the home and things got ugly.


ETA: Again this is just a theory.