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

Status
Not open for further replies.

ynotdivein

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Oct 28, 2009
Messages
11,425
Reaction score
69
State vs. Jason Lynn Young

Thread for Thursday, March 1, 2012


Link to rule reminder as we head to verdict


Live links:

http://www.wral.com/news/video/10690077/#/vid10690077

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/index

Keep it peaceable, peeps.

breakfast_buffet1.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-zqizb-LPrTo/Tzgh6r5KLII/AAAAAAAAAeQ/5FeFLd-Wh7E/s400/breakfast_buffet1.jpg
 
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
---------
 
Re: the CB's-daughter's-blog link posted in yesterday's thread -

This is going to come out harsher than I mean it to, but what's the daughter doing all up in it? I know nasty tweets are unpleasant, but if you're not all up in it, you're not going to get any. IMO that whole deal gives a bit of credence to the supervisor's testimony yesterday, people all up in stuff they ought not be all up in.
 
As far as the "acting in concert", the jury members don't have to all agree that he acted alone or all believe that he acted in concert in order to find him guilty, right? Seven could think alone and 5 think "in concert", right? If so, I think the judge/prosecution needs to make sure they understand that so long as each of the 12 jurors believes one or the other, that they all believe he is guilty.
 
The supervisor did say that even when she CB was caught in a lie, she refused to admit it. That should tell you something right there.

Re: the CB's-daughter's-blog link posted in yesterday's thread -

This is going to come out harsher than I mean it to, but what's the daughter doing all up in it? I know nasty tweets are unpleasant, but if you're not all up in it, you're not going to get any. IMO that whole deal gives a bit of credence to the supervisor's testimony yesterday, people all up in stuff they ought not be all up in.
 
Personally, I will not be watching the spin and lies from the defense this morning.

The Judge said he would allow up to 3 hours each for closing arguments (allowed 2 hours last trial). Collins / Klink finished in 1 hr, 30 min and Saacks / Holt finished in 1 hour, 50 minutes.

A surprise was announced yesterday afternoon when the Judge said he would also include the option of 2nd degree murder. He also said the jury will be told they can infer the defendant acted in concert with other(s), as long as they believe he was also there at the time of the murder.
 
Personally, I will not be watching the spin and lies from the defense this morning.

The Judge said he would allow up to 3 hours each for closing arguments (allowed 2 hours last trial). Collins / Klink finished in 1 hr, 30 min and Saacks / Holt finished in 1 hour, 50 minutes.

A surprise was announced yesterday afternoon when the Judge said he would also include the option of 2nd degree murder. He also said the jury will be told they can infer the defendant acted in concert with other(s), as long as they believe he was also there at the time of the murder.

Just so I understand, the Judge will instruct the jurors that they can convict him of second degree if they believe he had an accomplice? Holy smokes! :what:

I always felt he did or he hired someone.....this will be very interesting!
 
Cigar(s) purchased in Florida 2 years before the murder on a joint credit card was about as laughable as Pat producing that tube humidor sales gift from his old job (surelock logo) from 2001. I have no doubt he kept that tube to store condoms to keep them fresh :D

4325__big.jpg
 
Personally, I will not be watching the spin and lies from the defense this morning.

The Judge said he would allow up to 3 hours each for closing arguments (allowed 2 hours last trial). Collins / Klink finished in 1 hr, 30 min and Saacks / Holt finished in 1 hour, 50 minutes.

A surprise was announced yesterday afternoon when the Judge said he would also include the option of 2nd degree murder. He also said the jury will be told they can infer the defendant acted in concert with other(s), as long as they believe he was also there at the time of the murder.

bbm, thanks for pointing this out JTF! (I missed this yesterday)
 
Cigar(s) purchased in Florida 2 years before the murder on a joint credit card was about as laughable as Pat producing that tube humidor with his old job (surelock logo) from 2001. I have no doubt he kept that tube to store condoms to keep them fresh :D

4325__big.jpg

Ja, it is very odd how things turn up long after the murder, while other things magically end up missing long after the murder. Meanwhile, new shirts and shoes appear. The Y family has played games with everyone involved in this thing.
 
wasn't the cigar also purchased around the time (or same year range anyhoo) as CY being born?
 
Re: the CB's-daughter's-blog link posted in yesterday's thread -

This is going to come out harsher than I mean it to, but what's the daughter doing all up in it? I know nasty tweets are unpleasant, but if you're not all up in it, you're not going to get any. IMO that whole deal gives a bit of credence to the supervisor's testimony yesterday, people all up in stuff they ought not be all up in.

<modsnip>


I believe CB did see a vehicle at the end of the driveway and like her daughter said, she doesn't have a dog in this fight and she actually believed Jason was guilty so why would she lie about something like that? Nosy neighbours, busy bodies, whatever anyone wants to call them sometimes make good witnesses for or against a defendant.

She testified to what she saw and there is no reason whatsoever for her to lie under oath, imo.
 
wasn't the cigar also purchased around the time (or same year range anyhoo) as CY being born?

CY was born March 2004.
I did't catch the month in 2004 the cigar was purchased in Florida?
 
I think the option of the second degree may be helpful to jurors as an option. It should reduce the risk of a hung jury again IMO
 
<modsnip>


I believe CB did see a vehicle at the end of the driveway and like her daughter said, she doesn't have a dog in this fight and she actually believed Jason was guilty so why would she lie about something like that? Nosy neighbours, busy bodies, whatever anyone wants to call them sometimes make good witnesses for or against a defendant.

She testified to what she saw and there is no reason whatsoever for her to lie under oath, imo.

Personally, I don't think she made it up totally out of thin air....I just think she saw a car on another day, likely in another drive.

IMO, CB is a gossip and craves attention. After seeing the news and realizing this national story unfolded in her neighborhood, she embellished a remembrance she may have seen the week before.
I think the PT did a good job exposing her.
 
That's a great post. Post verdict declarations of "I knew it" will be correct for only one position. Nobody knows what the jury will do. Even the jury doesn't know what the jury will do, since they haven't discussed the case with each other or anyone. They aren't even supposed to have decided individually yet.

In the BC case many "knew" the jury would come back NG. I thought he was guilty, and in my mind I thought they would probably come back that way too. But, they came back the other way. Juries surprise trail watchers, and even themselves sometimes. Transposing one's own view of the case onto the minds of the juries is bound to be right sometimes, but it's never to be counted on.

I am sure the attorneys on both sides believe the coming closing arguments to be highly important. Why would they, if the verdict was already apparent?

I heard a DA say the other day that 98% of cases plea out. That surely includes a lot of minor cases, but also includes probably nearly every no brainer. What's left are close cases, or cases in which one side will simply not accept a compromise and want to go all or nothing. I think for such cases, the truth will almost never be apparent with 100% visibility from day one. Deciding what was proved and what wasn't is a matter of exercising judgment, not digitally checking off boxes.

I know I would fall into the easy disdain of criticizing juries or members of them when they didn't produce a verdict I agreed with on high profile cases; a lot of people do. But, I also know every time I stood in front of them in a real case that they represented the status of the people, the citizens, over the legal machine itself. It was always humbling to me. These twelve people would decide - not your well written brief, your long hours in the office, your degrees on the wall. Twelve people from the community.

It isn't a perfect system. It wouldn't be perfect without citizen involvement either. You are asking twelve people to pay close and constant attention to a sometimes confusing, often boring, and frequently lengthy process that their normal lives or personalities likely do not prepare them for. Some might not take it seriously, though almost all jurors do.

Today the attorneys will look the jurors directly in the eyes and make their case. Largely untethered by the restrictions of questioning or the limits of the opening statement, they can finally say what they think and what they feel about this case. And then the jurors, amongst themselves, can finally do the same. They've got a hard job, and if they put their best efforts to it, within whatever limits they have, they have done their duty regardless of their verdict.

The attorneys from both sides will likely thank the jury for their attention and their sacrifice and their effort to decide this case. That may be the only thing the attorneys agree on in closing. But, from prosecution and defense, it will be sincere. The professionals give way to the laymen. The truth and the exercise of power of the state are not, finally, decided by an elite, but by the ordinary citizens who depend on the integrity of the process for themselves and their community. The defendant will stand and see a verdict delivered. The jury is charged to speak the truth, and I hope they find it.
 
Just so I understand, the Judge will instruct the jurors that they can convict him of second degree if they believe he had an accomplice? Holy smokes! :what:

I always felt he did or he hired someone.....this will be very interesting!

The 2nd degree charge isn't directly tied to the accomplice. It has to do with possible lack of forethought and planning (which to me is odd in this case). The accomplice, if believed to be there, still would support the 1st degree charge if the murder were the result of premeditation.
 
I think the option of the second degree may be helpful to jurors as an option. It should reduce the risk of a hung jury again IMO

This is definitely true. However if the defense objected I agree with them on this. The state theory 100% (IMO) shows a planned murder. A second degree verdict then presents the possibility of a compromise between jurors, and that isn't supposed to happen, of course.

However, it's up to the judge and not me! :twocents:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
99
Guests online
803
Total visitors
902

Forum statistics

Threads
589,926
Messages
17,927,738
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top