Jason Young to get new trial #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
oenophile said:
Simple, you start by not presuming that any of them are working honestly and with integrity. You recognize that DA's are driven at least partly by a desire to achieve convictions even if that sometimes conflicts with truth. You assume that LE is willing to pursue the suspect that has the greatest chance of closing the case, even if that suspect did not commit the crime. You acknowledge that DA's and LEO's get tunnel vision and, as a result, ignore alternate theories of a crime once they have convinced themselves of who committed the crime.

If you can't do the above, then you absolutely are not in a position to evaluate the guilt or innocence of the accused.
Click to expand...

Is that standard procedure in jury instructions ?
 
Glenn101 said:
I really think that the defense has an uphill battle in this trial coming up, and not because of the strength of the evidence. Rather it is because of what has been allowed to be produced as evidence in the previous trials and will almost certainly be allowed to be produced in the next trial.

I had posited in an earlier post in this thread that Jason was made to be as unlikeable as possible by the prosecution in order to enhance their chances of a conviction. Some posters demurred saying that they did not really dislike Jason. They did not know him and really had no opinion one way or the other.

Yet, the way that some posters presented their arguments intrigued me. They seem supremely confident in their belief that Jason is guilty and react with impatience and even some bit of umbrage when others question things like Gracie's documented problems as a witness and the way that her testimony was elicited, rather than actually discussing the problems. One poster even criticized Jason's explanation about the HushPuppies saying that he thought that Michelle had given them to Goodwill as "blaming" it on Michelle.

I was trying to think of a term to describe what I am reading and "hearing". The term "moral outrage" came to me. So I typed 'conviction by "moral outrage" ' into google. The results were very informative. I will just provide a couple of the links, but there are a lot of them.

https://asunews.asu.edu/20131203-anger-disgust-studies

http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2014/0...rage-and-their-effect-on-mock-juror-verdicts/

I will quote just one part of the latter article.
"We again found that disgust was an even more consistent predictor than was anger: The more disgusted the jurors felt, the more moral outrage they experienced, which in turn made them more confident the defendant was guilty—this pattern existed regardless of how angry they were (even if they were experiencing no anger). This finding was consistent with other researchers’ findings that disgust might increase punitive tendencies to a greater degree than does anger (Russell & Giner-Sorolla, 2011)."

I think that this is food for thought as it concerns our attitudes towards this trial and any others that we may be a witness to or maybe even participate as a juror.

No one likes to be manipulated.

Glenn
Click to expand...
Other than the civil suit and custody agreement being presented what do you find prejudicial? The Daycare testimony? Should that be dropped? The defendant's prior acts in terms of his infidelity? The fact that their marriage was in trouble?
Of course, the prosecution will present the defendant in the worst light possible. The defense then counters that .
Though sick of discussing Gracie's testimony, I stand firm in supporting it. YOU saw it as a problem. I didn't. What more is there to discuss?
We have no way of knowing if jurors were morally outraged and disgusted and that entered into their decision making.
And the 'supremely confident in their beliefs' cuts both ways here.

It's true. No one likes to be manipulated......especially when a defendant takes the stand and testifies. MOO.
 
MyBelle said:
Of course it isn't crazy. I try to scroll and roll past accusations that don't seem to serve any purpose and I admire your patience. I agree with you that nobody here is obsessed with GB. The discussion isn't about her personally, it is about the process and the credibility of her testimony as a witness. And I've never seen a single poster on Websleuths ever proclaim "ALL LEO/DA/Judges are crooked" in any case, including this one.

JMO
Click to expand...

I don't know if it is patience or stubbornness, lol. You learn to scroll past the posts that
do not add anything of value to either side of the case. And, you can never be wrong if you keep presenting the facts, just as they were presented at trial.
 
Glenn101 said:
I really think that the defense has an uphill battle in this trial coming up, and not because of the strength of the evidence. Rather it is because of what has been allowed to be produced as evidence in the previous trials and will almost certainly be allowed to be produced in the next trial.

I had posited in an earlier post in this thread that Jason was made to be as unlikeable as possible by the prosecution in order to enhance their chances of a conviction. Some posters demurred saying that they did not really dislike Jason. They did not know him and really had no opinion one way or the other.

Yet, the way that some posters presented their arguments intrigued me. They seem supremely confident in their belief that Jason is guilty and react with impatience and even some bit of umbrage when others question things like Gracie's documented problems as a witness and the way that her testimony was elicited, rather than actually discussing the problems. One poster even criticized Jason's explanation about the HushPuppies saying that he thought that Michelle had given them to Goodwill as "blaming" it on Michelle.

I was trying to think of a term to describe what I am reading and "hearing". The term "moral outrage" came to me. So I typed 'conviction by "moral outrage" ' into google. The results were very informative. I will just provide a couple of the links, but there are a lot of them.

https://asunews.asu.edu/20131203-anger-disgust-studies

http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2014/0...rage-and-their-effect-on-mock-juror-verdicts/

I will quote just one part of the latter article.
"We again found that disgust was an even more consistent predictor than was anger: The more disgusted the jurors felt, the more moral outrage they experienced, which in turn made them more confident the defendant was guilty—this pattern existed regardless of how angry they were (even if they were experiencing no anger). This finding was consistent with other researchers’ findings that disgust might increase punitive tendencies to a greater degree than does anger (Russell & Giner-Sorolla, 2011)."

I think that this is food for thought as it concerns our attitudes towards this trial and any others that we may be a witness to or maybe even participate as a juror.

No one likes to be manipulated.

Glenn
Click to expand...

This whole "moral outrage" mentality has no place in a jury room. I've been on a couple of juries. After our verdict, one of the cases resulted in a mistrial because the Judge was made aware of juror misconduct. One of the jurors read outside information and brought it into the jury room. If judges would start prosecuting for such misconduct, maybe the epidemic of decisions based on "attitudes" rather than actual evidence will cease.

The "moral outrage" in this case was fueled by those two civil cases and that was the intent. The appellate opinion notes that the only reason the prosecution introduced the civil cases at trial was to use the opinions and allegations in those cases as evidence. It is the judge's job to ensure a fair trial and impartial jury. I really doubt it happens next time around because the jury pool is aware Jason didn't receive a fair trial. I don't believe there will be 12 people who share the perch on whatever high horse an individual juror rides in on.

JMO
 
Glenn101 said:
I really think that the defense has an uphill battle in this trial coming up, and not because of the strength of the evidence. Rather it is because of what has been allowed to be produced as evidence in the previous trials and will almost certainly be allowed to be produced in the next trial.

I had posited in an earlier post in this thread that Jason was made to be as unlikeable as possible by the prosecution in order to enhance their chances of a conviction. Some posters demurred saying that they did not really dislike Jason. They did not know him and really had no opinion one way or the other.

Yet, the way that some posters presented their arguments intrigued me. They seem supremely confident in their belief that Jason is guilty and react with impatience and even some bit of umbrage when others question things like Gracie's documented problems as a witness and the way that her testimony was elicited, rather than actually discussing the problems. One poster even criticized Jason's explanation about the HushPuppies saying that he thought that Michelle had given them to Goodwill as "blaming" it on Michelle.

I was trying to think of a term to describe what I am reading and "hearing". The term "moral outrage" came to me. So I typed 'conviction by "moral outrage" ' into google. The results were very informative. I will just provide a couple of the links, but there are a lot of them.

https://asunews.asu.edu/20131203-anger-disgust-studies

http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2014/0...rage-and-their-effect-on-mock-juror-verdicts/

I will quote just one part of the latter article.
"We again found that disgust was an even more consistent predictor than was anger: The more disgusted the jurors felt, the more moral outrage they experienced, which in turn made them more confident the defendant was guilty—this pattern existed regardless of how angry they were (even if they were experiencing no anger). This finding was consistent with other researchers’ findings that disgust might increase punitive tendencies to a greater degree than does anger (Russell & Giner-Sorolla, 2011)."

I think that this is food for thought as it concerns our attitudes towards this trial and any others that we may be a witness to or maybe even participate as a juror.

No one likes to be manipulated.

Glenn
Click to expand...

Too bad all people on juries are not as smart and level headed as you.
 
oenophile said:
Not directly, but in some ways I wish it was.
Click to expand...

Actually, it is in the oath all jurors take. They are to judge the evidence without any prejudice. A prosecutor or cop's theory that a guy is guilty isn't evidence at all just as opening and closing arguments are not evidence. [modsnip] Jeez, even after it was over he announced that Michelle died as a result of domestic violence even though there was no evidence whatsoever that Jason ever physically assaulted Michelle. This case is so over the top as far as a miscarriage of justice, it is ridiculous. in my humble opinion.

Oath for Petit Juror
You do solemnly swear (affirm) that you will truthfully and without prejudice or partiality try all issues in civil or criminal actions that come before you and give true verdicts according to the evidence, so help you, God

http://www.ncga.state.nc.us/EnactedLegislation/Statutes/PDF/ByChapter/Chapter_11.pdf
 
citygirl said:
Other than the civil suit and custody agreement being presented what do you find prejudicial? The Daycare testimony? Should that be dropped? The defendant's prior acts in terms of his infidelity? The fact that their marriage was in trouble?
Of course, the prosecution will present the defendant in the worst light possible. The defense then counters that .
Though sick of discussing Gracie's testimony, I stand firm in supporting it. YOU saw it as a problem. I didn't. What more is there to discuss?
We have no way of knowing if jurors were morally outraged and disgusted and that entered into their decision making.
And the 'supremely confident in their beliefs' cuts both ways here.

It's true. No one likes to be manipulated......especially when a defendant takes the stand and testifies. MOO.
Click to expand...

Did you read any of the articles I referenced? Can you step back and analyze your last statement in view of the articles and how you felt as you watched the trials unfold?

I do think that the testimony and detailed minutes of his affairs were designed to build disgust with Jason's infidelities. It certainly was effective with me. Especially the testimony about his having sex with MM in his home, in the bedroom he shared with MY. However, those testimonies did not reveal a person who was planning on leaving his wife, who wanted out of his marriage. MM basically said that their relationship had no future. There were no smoking guns in the emails that Jason exchanged with MM of JC, such as hints that he would soon be free to be with any of them.

As has been noted by many posters, there are many people having affairs. Most of them do not kill their spouses. Testimony and information about extramarital affairs is only relevant if it tends to show that the defendant is wanting out of his marriage and/or has plans to do so. Otherwise, it is just part of a character assassination effort used to engender feelings of disgust in the hearts of the jurors.

Glenn
 
It's been a little over 90 days now (4-16 to 7-16) since the state asked the NC Supreme Court to review the appeal, we should be hearing something soon.
I think something may happen in the next 10-15 days. JMO
 
citygirl said:
I didn't think so. Thanks
Click to expand...

What is your point? Indirectly, it absolutely is part of the jury instructions. Juries are instructed to not take their views of the attorneys into consideration, and there is quite a bit of instruction about witnesses, which includes LEOs.

Please explain your comment and why you think it is significant.
 
Testimony and information about extramarital affairs is only relevant if it tends to show that the defendant is wanting out of his marriage and/or has plans to do so. Otherwise, it is just part of a character assassination effort used to engender feelings of disgust in the hearts of the jurors
Click to expand...

Before you accuse anyone of character assassination, please become better informed. I suppose you missed the testimony related to JY's statements about his marriage made a few weeks before the murder.

Some people posting here feel it's not necessary to hear the entire case. I disagree. You can miss pesky little details such as Jason being done with his marriage.
 
Boodles said:
Before you accuse anyone of character assassination, please become better informed. I suppose you missed the testimony related to JY's statements about his marriage made a few weeks before the murder.

Some people posting here feel it's not necessary to hear the entire case. I disagree. You can miss pesky little details such as Jason being done with his marriage.
Click to expand...

Quite the opposite, some people posting here want to hear the exculpatory evidence too. Or is that something that you would prefer to ignore?

The simple fact is that marital strife is not a reason for murder. It seems to me that there is a very vocal group that is willing to blame a husband for a murder simply because he was a bad husband. This I find to be borderline sexist, and I think it is part of the reason why so many innocent people are convicted.
 
Glenn101 said:
Did you read any of the articles I referenced? Can you step back and analyze your last statement in view of the articles and how you felt as you watched the trials unfold?

I do think that the testimony and detailed minutes of his affairs were designed to build disgust with Jason's infidelities. It certainly was effective with me. Especially the testimony about his having sex with MM in his home, in the bedroom he shared with MY. However, those testimonies did not reveal a person who was planning on leaving his wife, who wanted out of his marriage. MM basically said that their relationship had no future. There were no smoking guns in the emails that Jason exchanged with MM of JC, such as hints that he would soon be free to be with any of them.

As has been noted by many posters, there are many people having affairs. Most of them do not kill their spouses. Testimony and information about extramarital affairs is only relevant if it tends to show that the defendant is wanting out of his marriage and/or has plans to do so. Otherwise, it is just part of a character assassination effort used to engender feelings of disgust in the hearts of the jurors.

Glenn
Click to expand...
I did. Read both of them. Then read the jury consultants reviews of the grad students study.
Once again, I listened to the evidence presented in both trials. I evaluated the defendant's testimony in the first trial. I didn't believe a word he said.
No matter how you try to undermine or parse my reasoning, it doesn't matter. I know why I came to that decision and that's all that matters. And it is unwavering. Nothing you say will change my mind.
And you tend to confuse the basics, no disrespect intended. MM never slept with the defendant in his house.
As for extramarital affairs are only relevant if proved that the person wants out? He said he was done. He sent an email to his long lost love just 6 weeks before his wife was murdered. What do you want? A missive saying he was gonna kill his wife because he wanted out? You are of the mind set that LE was looking to nail him. Until you move away from that narrow minded, tunnel vision I don't see us making any progress in any further discussion.
 
oenophile said:
What is your point? Indirectly, it absolutely is part of the jury instructions. Juries are instructed to not take their views of the attorneys into consideration, and there is quite a bit of instruction about witnesses, which includes LEOs.

Please explain your comment and why you think it is significant.
Click to expand...

Just responding to your post that you wish it was. It isn't as you stated. And then I thanked you. Nothing more nothing less.
 
Glenn101 said:
Testimony and information about extramarital affairs is only relevant if it tends to show that the defendant is wanting out of his marriage and/or has plans to do so. Otherwise, it is just part of a character assassination effort used to engender feelings of disgust in the hearts of the jurors
Boodles said:
Before you accuse anyone of character assassination, please become better informed. I suppose you missed the testimony related to JY's statements about his marriage made a few weeks before the murder.
Click to expand...

Some people posting here feel it's not necessary to hear the entire case. I disagree. You can miss pesky little details such as Jason being done with his marriage.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the conversation that Jason had with a couple of friends after a heated argument with Michelle??? All of you who have ever had heated arguments with a spouse and had such temporary feelings but never killed them please raise your hand. Mine is up.

However, your point is off. I quoted myself just to keep the point on point. What you brought up had nothing to do with what I said. None of the testimony by any of Jason's former or current lovers, nor his emails to them indicated anything about a desire to be out of his marriage to be with them.

Glenn
 
oenophile said:
Quite the opposite, some people posting here want to hear the exculpatory evidence too. Or is that something that you would prefer to ignore?

The simple fact is that marital strife is not a reason for murder. It seems to me that there is a very vocal group that is willing to blame a husband for a murder simply because he was a bad husband. This I find to be borderline sexist, and I think it is part of the reason why so many innocent people are convicted.
Click to expand...

Oh please! Let's hear the exculpatory evidence. Where is it? And bringing in borderline sexism? Are you kidding me? Let's stick to what is real. I'm reminded of the OJ juror after the verdict. You want this to be about domestic violence then take it down the hall to that courtroom! MOO.
 
I'm calling it now.
We are never going to make it through another trial.:judge:
 
JusticeFever said:
I'm calling it now.
We are never going to make it through another trial.:judge:
Click to expand...

I'm ready to hear something on Brad Cooper. I wish I would have followed it at the time--it has been weird watching it by myself with no sleuther to discuss it.

PS. that is the cutest smiley evah.
 
Glenn101 said:
Did you read any of the articles I referenced? Can you step back and analyze your last statement in view of the articles and how you felt as you watched the trials unfold?

I do think that the testimony and detailed minutes of his affairs were designed to build disgust with Jason's infidelities. It certainly was effective with me. Especially the testimony about his having sex with MM in his home, in the bedroom he shared with MY. However, those testimonies did not reveal a person who was planning on leaving his wife, who wanted out of his marriage. MM basically said that their relationship had no future. There were no smoking guns in the emails that Jason exchanged with MM of JC, such as hints that he would soon be free to be with any of them.

As has been noted by many posters, there are many people having affairs. Most of them do not kill their spouses. Testimony and information about extramarital affairs is only relevant if it tends to show that the defendant is wanting out of his marriage and/or has plans to do so. Otherwise, it is just part of a character assassination effort used to engender feelings of disgust in the hearts of the jurors.

Glenn
Click to expand...

You are correct about the not having sex in their home thing. I was remembering what a poster on another forum had said, which turns out to be not true. Thanks for setting me straight.

I have no illusions that I nor anyone else will be able to change your mind or any of the others here who think Jason is guilty. I do not buy your reasoning because it ignores some evidence that is pretty difficult to overcome. No one has been able to explain how Jason managed to get his vehicle to average twenty-seven or more miles per gallon, which includes the alleged stop in King when the best anyone has ever reported is twenty-two, and Jason's own gas purchases indicated that he averaged nineteen and a half miles per gallon.

That is why the moral outrage card was played so heavily, to get jurors to bite on the could haves and may haves without bothering to ascertain whether there is any evidence for the could haves and may haves.

Glenn
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 154 more.
Total: 2,884 (members: 155, guests: 2,729)

Online statistics

Members online
155
Guests online
2,729
Total visitors
2,884
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,126
Messages
17,963,621
Members
228,689
Latest member
Melladanielle
Back
Top