Jason Young to get new trial

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of us were there, and none of us know what was said or not said. Everyone that was there problably has a slightly different memory of what was said or not said. What is happening here is that we are imagining what Jason said or didn't say, and trying to criticize him for whatever we think he did or didn't say. Somehow, that criticism is supposed to imply that he is a murderer, but it's not working for me.

Exactly, the only thing that would have been suspicious is if Jason refused to return or he left the SUV behind. I am really not interested in what he said or did or didn't say or do, he was told his wife was dead....and he manned up and hightailed it back to Raleigh.
 
He manned up?

I don't think he did anything but go along and ride in the back seat with his momma. Well he did tell his sister, Heather, that she "will make a good mother to CY." That was before they all left to go back to Raleigh.
 
May I politely ask what changed your mind? Didn't you think he was guilty? I thought you did? It looks so from the old MY threads here? TIA

I sure did think he was guilty. When I first read that another pregnant woman was murdered, I immediately suspected the husband. When I read, days after the murder, that all the lights were on in the house at 4AM, I was surprised, as that is inconsistent with the husband, but I set that fact aside and went with the general belief that the husband was guilty. That fact (lights on) soon disappeared from news reports, but was again mentioned during trial. I really doubt that the husband would turn on all the light in the house, and draw attention to himself, if he's pretending that he's a few hundred miles away.

The case took a strange turn when the family wanted Jason to be ruled "slayer". We now had police, the courts, the victim's family, and several people from the general public satisfied that Jason was guilty, but there was still no evidence. That strikes me as a very backwards approach to justice.

Next, we have two trials. In the first, the jury had only been deliberating for a short time and they were 8-4 for not guilty. I thought that the judge should have sent them back to work harder, but the judge could see where the jury was headed and opted to call a mistrial. That meant that the prosecution could have another shot at trying the case. I do believe that the Judge was too hasty in calling a mistrial and I have wondered if he made the decision so fast because he did not like the direction the jury was taking.

In the second trial, the Judge allowed the perceptions of a daycare employee to be presented as though those perceptions were valid, whereas I believe that a daycare employee, with no training in early childhood behaviour, has no ability to interpret child's play. Who needs experienced psychologists with a masters degree when daycare workers are capable to doing the same work? The Judge allowed his ruling about Jason's guilt (slayer) to be introduced in court. The Judge clearly had formed an opinion about the case well before hearing the case, and I think it's possible that his courtroom rulings, including the decision for mistrial, were a little biased for the prosecution.

Finally, there is the investigation itself. Police were sloppy. They imagined that there was blood on the vehicle to obtain a search warrant. They photographed blood evidence in the bathroom, but there was no scale for the size of the blood smears. That is sloppy. They failed to collect the bedding and other evidence that had blood. They failed to collect visible evidence such as a tooth. They failed to present a proper photo array for suspect identification. They coached the gas station witness. They ignored the hotel witness statements. None of that should have happened in a clean investigation.

All of that, and some, leaves me wondering whether this case would have resulted in verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case was handled properly.
 
In the second trial, the Judge allowed the perceptions of a daycare employee to be presented as though those perceptions were valid, whereas I believe that a daycare employee, with no training in early childhood behaviour, has no ability to interpret child's play.
Agreed! So it's especially good that she didn't provide perceptions or add any opinion or interpretation to what those behaviors or words meant that she directly witnessed when CY was playing with the dollhouse and the dolls. She just told what she saw and what she heard. Hey "direct" evidence!

The only thing she did perceive and comment on was that CY was acting withdrawn/subdued, not how she normally was in her prior days at the daycare.

In the first, the jury had only been deliberating for a short time and they were 8-4 for not guilty.
How much is a "short time?" I thought they were into day #2 when they hit their brick wall. And I thought they started out at 6/6 and then it went to 8/4 by the time they said there wasn't going to be any movement whatsoever and no one was going to change their vote?

The case took a strange turn when the family wanted Jason to be ruled "slayer".
The family wanted to hold JY accountable in civil court, which is quite normal and is their right. The law is what determines the title given to the person if they lose the civil case (or default, as JY did). A civil suit has a number of benefits outside of any criminal case. Here in the US civil suits for wrongful death are very common. At the point the civil case was filed the statute of limitations was almost up. Once that passes there's no going back. At the point the suit was filed, there was no indication there would ever be a murder trial. JY was not arrested and it had been almost 2 years.

All of that, and some, leaves me wondering whether this case would have resulted in verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case was handled properly.
This case just that when the 2nd jury was able to come to a unanimous decision. Like it or not that's the U.S. system. If a jury cannot come to a unanimous decision in either direction then the case ends up hung and it can be retried by the state. Of course due to the legal error ruled by the appellate judges, there will either be a 3rd try (or really, just another do-over) or there could be a plea and JY admits guilt for a lesser charge, like 2nd degree murder.
 
My settings have 100 per page (the 25 per page drives me nuts :nuts: )

I like the lesser posts per page if I am looking for a specific post to answer. If I am just scrolling, then it doesn't matter.
 
I dont think anyone needs to explain why they are here, do you? If you read my original posts I thought this was one case that could go either way and I came here to discuss both the Abaroa and Haye's cases before the announcement was even made that this conviction would be overturned.
As for people who disappeared after the last trial, maybe they accepted the Verdict and moved on. I just don't think anyone here has anything personal to do with this case, but I can only speak for myself And the answer is, I don't.
Maybe we can keep the personal remarks about other posters out of our posts or we will never make it until the next trial !

I didn't ask anyone to explain why they are here...
I asked "Has this case always been this way?".

But that has been answered, no need to respond.

I have also made no personal remarks about anyone (If you did not mean me, disregard).

Thanks
 
He manned up?

I don't think he did anything but go along and ride in the back seat with his momma. Well he did tell his sister, Heather, that she "will make a good mother to CY." That was before they all left to go back to Raleigh.

He could have made excuses to stall. And, you are taking Heather's comments out of context. She was telling Jason, Michelle would be with their Dad in heaven..
 
I sure did think he was guilty. When I first read that another pregnant woman was murdered, I immediately suspected the husband. When I read, days after the murder, that all the lights were on in the house at 4AM, I was surprised, as that is inconsistent with the husband, but I set that fact aside and went with the general belief that the husband was guilty. That fact (lights on) soon disappeared from news reports, but was again mentioned during trial. I really doubt that the husband would turn on all the light in the house, and draw attention to himself, if he's pretending that he's a few hundred miles away.

The case took a strange turn when the family wanted Jason to be ruled "slayer". We now had police, the courts, the victim's family, and several people from the general public satisfied that Jason was guilty, but there was still no evidence. That strikes me as a very backwards approach to justice.

Next, we have two trials. In the first, the jury had only been deliberating for a short time and they were 8-4 for not guilty. I thought that the judge should have sent them back to work harder, but the judge could see where the jury was headed and opted to call a mistrial. That meant that the prosecution could have another shot at trying the case. I do believe that the Judge was too hasty in calling a mistrial and I have wondered if he made the decision so fast because he did not like the direction the jury was taking.

In the second trial, the Judge allowed the perceptions of a daycare employee to be presented as though those perceptions were valid, whereas I believe that a daycare employee, with no training in early childhood behaviour, has no ability to interpret child's play. Who needs experienced psychologists with a masters degree when daycare workers are capable to doing the same work? The Judge allowed his ruling about Jason's guilt (slayer) to be introduced in court. The Judge clearly had formed an opinion about the case well before hearing the case, and I think it's possible that his courtroom rulings, including the decision for mistrial, were a little biased for the prosecution.

Finally, there is the investigation itself. Police were sloppy. They imagined that there was blood on the vehicle to obtain a search warrant. They photographed blood evidence in the bathroom, but there was no scale for the size of the blood smears. That is sloppy. They failed to collect the bedding and other evidence that had blood. They failed to collect visible evidence such as a tooth. They failed to present a proper photo array for suspect identification. They coached the gas station witness. They ignored the hotel witness statements. None of that should have happened in a clean investigation.

All of that, and some, leaves me wondering whether this case would have resulted in verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt if the case was handled properly.

I couldn't even begin to tell you how much I agree with this, so i will just co-sign.
Although, I may add more to it later
 
He could have made excuses to stall. And, you are taking Heather's comments out of context. She was telling Jason, Michelle would be with their Dad in heaven..

What does "Michelle would be with their dad in heaven" have to do with JY saying, "you will make a good mother to CY?" The two are unrelated. Heather was named as a god parent but god parents come into play in terms of raising a child when both parents are deceased. And, if JY had remarried, wouldn't his new wife be the (step)parent of little CY and become her "mother?"
 
Agreed! So it's especially good that she didn't provide perceptions or add any opinion or interpretation to what those behaviors or words meant that she directly witnessed when CY was playing with the dollhouse and the dolls. She just told what she saw and what she heard. Hey "direct" evidence!

The only thing she did perceive and comment on was that CY was acting withdrawn/subdued, not how she normally was in her prior days at the daycare.

How much is a "short time?" I thought they were into day #2 when they hit their brick wall. And I thought they started out at 6/6 and then it went to 8/4 by the time they said there wasn't going to be any movement whatsoever and no one was going to change their vote?

The family wanted to hold JY accountable in civil court, which is quite normal and is their right. The law is what determines the title given to the person if they lose the civil case (or default, as JY did). A civil suit has a number of benefits outside of any criminal case. Here in the US civil suits for wrongful death are very common. At the point the civil case was filed the statute of limitations was almost up. Once that passes there's no going back. At the point the suit was filed, there was no indication there would ever be a murder trial. JY was not arrested and it had been almost 2 years.

This case just that when the 2nd jury was able to come to a unanimous decision. Like it or not that's the U.S. system. If a jury cannot come to a unanimous decision in either direction then the case ends up hung and it can be retried by the state. Of course due to the legal error ruled by the appellate judges, there will either be a 3rd try (or really, just another do-over) or there could be a plea and JY admits guilt for a lesser charge, like 2nd degree murder.

If we take ten people and have them observe a wallet theft, chances are there will be ten variations of the facts. One daycare worker observing a series of events carried out by one of several children in her care is probably not worth anything.

It's normal and acceptable for a suspect to remain silent, but apparently it is not accepted as normal in this case.

The second trial is essentially annulled due to errors made by the Judge. I don't think that Jason can plead to second degree murder unless he wants to tell us that he suddenly remembered that he had to pick something up from the house in the middle of the night and while he was there he suddenly decided to murder his wife.
 
If we take ten people and have them observe a wallet theft, chances are there will be ten variations of the facts. One daycare worker observing a series of events carried out by one of several children in her care is probably not worth anything.

So you're saying direct evidence, which is what an eye witness is, is not reliable? Even when the witness is actually sitting or standing right by the person she is observing and watching and listening to her and can convey, in detail, what the person she saw did and said, verbatim? That's about as good as eyewitness testimony can get. It's a chunk of time in the person's presence, not a quick flyby. So, how about 2 witnesses who were there and both saw and heard the same thing and both were able to describe it in much the same terms, with little variation in the details? Were you aware there were 2 daycare workers who testified in this case?

It's normal and acceptable for a suspect to remain silent, but apparently it is not accepted as normal in this case.
It's normal for a spouse, upon learning his/her pregnant spouse is dead, to not be the least bit curious about what happened to his/her spouse and ask the person who is telling him/her this news "what happened?" That's a first for me. I mean, I suppose it makes perfect sense if the surviving spouse already knows exactly how his/her spouse died. Then there's no need to ask, as that would be redundant. And while the Dept of Redundancy Dept would approve, it just wastes energy and time.

The second trial is essentially annulled due to errors made by the Judge. I don't think that Jason can plead to second degree murder unless he wants to tell us that he suddenly remembered that he had to pick something up from the house in the middle of the night and while he was there he suddenly decided to murder his wife.
IF the state offers him a plea bargain, which would be done through his attorneys, (and yes the state can do this), and he wants to accept the lesser charge in order to get a reduced sentence (upwards of 10 or more years, depending), he could do just that. He is not required to tell the details of what he did, but by accepting a deal, if such a deal were offered, he would be admitting guilt to the charge(s) he is accepting. ETA: In fact, Ann Miller Contz, killer of husband Eric Miller via arsenic poisoning, did accept a 2nd degree murder plea and was given a 25 yr sentence. She absolutely intended to kill Eric Miller (spiking his food and beverages with arsenic poison over some period of weeks), but she got a 2nd degree murder charge / plea.
 
What does "Michelle would be with their dad in heaven" have to do with JY saying, "you will make a good mother to CY?" The two are unrelated. Heather was named as a god parent but god parents come into play in terms of raising a child when both parents are deceased. And, if JY had remarried, wouldn't his new wife be the (step)parent of little CY and become her "mother?"

Heather was asked about this comment at trial and said it was taken out of context.
And, she also said exactly what I previously posted as to what they were referring to.
Her testimony is at WRAL if you need to look it up.
Maybe Jason meant Heather could fill in that role for the time being, but also that no one could ever take Michelle's place.
 
Heather was asked about this comment at trial and said it was taken out of context.
And, she also said exactly what I previously posted as to what they were referring to.
Her testimony is at WRAL if you need to look it up.
Maybe Jason meant Heather could fill in that role for the time being, but also that no one could ever take Michelle's place.

So Heather put his comment in context and I'm still not understanding how Heather would, in any way, be the mother to CY as long as CY's father was still alive and still able to have custody of her and raise her. It would make sense if he had said, "You're going to be a great mother some day." It's the inclusion and specifically "to CY" that puzzles me. I bet I'm not the only one puzzled by his comment. Was he planning to hand custody of CY over to his sister? (rhetorical question, I'm not suggesting any one here could possibly know the answer to this).
 
So you're saying direct evidence, which is what an eye witness is, is not reliable? Even when the witness is actually sitting or standing right by the person she is observing and watching and listening to her and can convey, in detail, what the person she saw did and said, verbatim? That's about as good as eyewitness testimony can get. It's a chunk of time in the person's presence, not a quick flyby. So, how about 2 witnesses who were there and both saw and heard the same thing and both were able to describe it in much the same terms, with little variation in the details? Were you aware there were 2 daycare workers who testified in this case?

It's normal for a spouse, upon learning his/her pregnant spouse is dead, to not be the least bit curious about what happened to his/her spouse and ask the person who is telling him/her this news "what happened?" That's a first for me. I mean, I suppose it makes perfect sense if the surviving spouse already knows exactly how his/her spouse died. Then there's no need to ask, as that would be redundant. And while the Dept of Redundancy Dept would approve, it just wastes energy and time.

IF the state offers him a plea bargain, which would be done through his attorneys, (and yes the state can do this), and he wants to accept the lesser charge in order to get a reduced sentence (upwards of 10 or more years, depending), he could do just that. He is not required to tell the details of what he did, but by accepting a deal, if such a deal were offered, he would be admitting guilt to the charge(s) he is accepting.

Sorry ... didn't mean to be confusing. Psychologists complete years of training in order to be able to observe child's play, describe what they see, and interpret what it means. Daycare employees should not be qualified as witnesses to describe what it happening when a child picks up a couple of toys and moves them. The daycare worker knew that the child's mother had been murdered and it is impossible for her to be objective in interpreting anything related to that child. She simply is not qualified. However, I understand that things are different in NC, and that a daycare employee that is looking after several children at the same time is capable of observing a child with toys and knowing exactly what the child is doing with them. One daycare worker discussed her impressions with another daycare worker and voila, they all saw the same thing. I don't believe that makes the observation more credible.

Jason had the right to remain silent, just like the victim's family had the right to have him held responsible for her murder in civil court. If Jason's right to exercise that right is grounds for criticism, then it should be open season on anyone that exercises their rights ... or, more reasonably, perhaps we should respect those rights and realize that exercising those rights should have no bearing on guilt.

I don't think that Jason will be offered a plea deal. Isn't it much more fun for prosecutors to convict the innocent? (see problems with NC forensics lab)
 
I am sure some of the things people say when someone dies doesn't make any sense. maybe this is
one of them, I only know it was probably brought into trial to make people think he was already moving on. I am not going to hold a comment which Heather said was taken out of context since she was in on the conversation.

Oops, sorry, I will move this over, thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
78
Guests online
2,399
Total visitors
2,477

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,964
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top