Breaking News/State files Brief Today in Young Case.10/20/14

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
JusticeFever said:
The PDR LINK: (152 pages)

www.ncappellatecourts.org/show-file.php?document_id=154207

Again, credit to Sunshine05.
Click to expand...

Thanks, JF and Sunshine05!

It looks like the reason the state asked for the review is because the appellate court did not render an opinion on two key points and that is why the Supreme Court agreed to review it. The Attorney General's office might feel there is not sufficient evidence to justify the expense of a new trial. The NC Innocence Commission is under the Supreme Court. There is an overwhelming lack of factual evidence against Jason Young. DNA pointing to someone else has been the reason other convictions have been overturned.

JMO

The Court of Appeals did not
address defendant's claims of expression of judicial opinion and sufficiency of the
evidence. M., slip op. at 44
 
MyBelle said:
Thanks, JF and Sunshine05!

It looks like the reason the state asked for the review is because the appellate court did not render an opinion on two key points and that is why the Supreme Court agreed to review it. The Attorney General's office might feel there is not sufficient evidence to justify the expense of a new trial. The NC Innocence Commission is under the Supreme Court. There is an overwhelming lack of factual evidence against Jason Young. DNA pointing to someone else has been the reason other convictions have been overturned.

JMO

The Court of Appeals did not
address defendant's claims of expression of judicial opinion and sufficiency of the
evidence. M., slip op. at 44
Click to expand...

If nothing else, we may be hearing the sounds of a plea deal......I guess they would do the same thing they did to Brad, ask Jason to give up custody and rights to his daughter for a lesser sentence.
I don't know, we will see.
 
Landonsmom02 said:
So now JY has 30 days to respond??
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe so..... the briefs will then be reviewed and there will be a decision if/when to hold oral arguments if it comes down to that...

It is very possible if Jason is awarded a new trial, we may see a plea deal offered, as this would be his 3rd trial..JMO
 
JusticeFever said:
Yes, I believe so..... the briefs will then be reviewed and there will be a decision if/when to hold oral arguments if it comes down to that...

It is very possible if Jason is awarded a new trial, we may see a plea deal offered, as this would be his 3rd trial..JMO
Click to expand...

Ok thanks!
 
JusticeFever said:
New at WRAL: 10/23/14
Jason Young's former attorney, Mike Klinkosum, will now represent Michael Peterson in his second trial

http://www.wral.com/mike-peterson-gets-new-attorney-for-second-murder-trial/14109012/

Peterson refused a plea deal that would give him no jail time if he accepted a 2nd degree murder charge,,:waitasec:
Click to expand...

Ugh... I can't stand Klinkosum. He represented Teghan Skiba's killer this past March/April at the trial in Smithfield. I could do without seeing him, IMHO. But I do hope that if granted there will be a 3rd trial and no plea.
 
We should hear something in the next 10 days, unless Jason's attorney decides to file an extension......
 
Jason's attorney did file an extension until 12/23/14....will post link tomorrow..
 
I finally got around to reading the brief the state filed. This reminds me so much of the Cooper case, in the way that things are documented and not always correctly.

For instance, they say that MY was cutting back to part time at work. False. She was working on a plan to keep her full time job status and benefits by working longer hours and also from home , and through emails. Her boss testified to a outline she made at the trial.

Also, in another part they are trying to say Cindy Beaver was confused about what day she saw the car at/near the Young house in the early hours of Nov. 3th. Also, false.

See, its things like this they make me distrust their case. JMO
 
See, its things like this they make me distrust their
Click to expand...

You are mistaken. Michelle requested to change to part time status. Her boss explicitly testified to this fact.
 
Boodles said:
You are mistaken. Michelle requested to change to part time status. Her boss explicitly testified to this fact.
Click to expand...

Then you might want to watch this video... testimony of Michelle Young's employer.Paul Matthews at Progress Energy.
www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9734055/

Michelle submitted a proposal that would allow her to work 30 hours a week at the office , 10 hours on Tues, Wed, Thurs, and still be reached on Mondays by emails or voicemail where she could check in from home.
Fridays were already called Flex Fridays.
The reason for this proposal was that she wanted to still maintain her full time benefits and health insurance. while losing only 10 hours from her normal schedule.

If Michelle wanted to cut back to part time without keeping the additional full time benefits, she simply would have done so, and there would have been no need for this proposal.
 
I completely understand what was testified to. You are misunderstanding. <mod snip> The brief was not incorrect, as you alleged. She had proposed switching to part time status. That's that, period, so I won't comment further.
 
Michelle's proposal of part time was to only cut her working hours by 10 hours which the state wants us to believe was a motive for Jason to murder her.

10 hours, yet being able to keep all full time benefits.

Part time employment usually falls in the 20-24 hours per week category, 30 hours would be well over that,,and, it was 30 hours plus being able to be reached on a day off!!!

Now, if Michelle was going to quit her job altogether and stay home to be a full time mom, that may have helped the state's motive, but to decrease her workload by a mere 10 hours really doesn't work.

Also, something else to consider....If Michelle was only going to come into the office 3 days a week, she would be home with her daughter so there would be less money spent on her daycare as well!

Glad you understood, it really isn't that complicated, and I provided the link to the testimony where it was all explained!!
 
Many companies consider "full time" as over 30 hours and some specify over 32 hours to be full-time, so it's variable. The point that was trying to be made, that the state's brief can't be trusted because the state was wrong to say Michelle was proposing or planning to go part time, is strange, because 30 hours absolutely can be considered to be part-time, and it's not incorrect to use that verbiage to describe it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 204 more.
Total: 4,595 (members: 205, guests: 4,390)

Online statistics

Members online
205
Guests online
4,390
Total visitors
4,595
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,359
Messages
17,968,071
Members
228,760
Latest member
Chelsea Briann
Back
Top