SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[Boodles]

I assume they have to request cell phone records for the juror(s) and other parties allegedly involved to see the data transmitted (or not). As we have seen from other investigations, this requires going through the cell phone provider's legal organization with a subpoena, if I am not mistaken. That in itself could take a long time.

I don't like this allegation, but I'm not going to get worked up about it until and unless something is found to be funky.

If no wrongdoing is found, it's a damn shame that this happened, and I wish people wouldn't screw around like this. Investigations are expensive, and we have other issues, like EDUCATION, that need funding.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't think, for some, it will matter if SBI comes back and says that their investigation didn't turn up anything misconduct activity by the jury.

This is an excellent point. Doesn't matter what the SBI says; the SBI for some people can never be redeemed, and that will be the excuse used to not trust the investigation results. Unless the SBI does find that a juror was texting. Then the SBI investigation will be deemed perfect. And because JY is the most important person and his case is the most important one in the entire state, this investigation should be put ahead of every other one in the queue. Far ahead of that issue with the district judge and the DUIs, the one that happened first and for which the SBI was engaged first. All investigations aside from JY's should be paused and all agents should instead work on the possible texting allegation.

 

[Talina]

I agree. I know JS is involved in an SBI investigation of another judge and their DUI cases being fixed in some way. Numerous cases of possible judicial misconduct that began prior to and during the JY case. I also am curious as to the finding in the JY case, but honestly doubt it tops judicial misconduct if that turns out to be the case. JS is also involved in numerous high profile upcoming cases. He appears to be a busy busy man.

I was just reading about that this morning when I did a google search on news to see if any updates on this one. I had no idea about the other SBI investigation that JS had requested a few weeks ago. After seeing that one, I totally agree that would trump priority over this one, for sure. That is to assume that they are having to prioritize this sort of thing if they are pressed for time and resources.

IMO

 

[cody100]

I don't think, for some, it will matter if SBI comes back and says that their investigation didn't turn up anything misconduct activity by the jury.

SBI will get accused of sweeping it under the rug to save the conviction and avoid a new trial.

On the other hand, if they do report misconduct, and Judge Stephens finds it does not meet the standard required to warrant a new trial, he will be accused of sweeping it under the rug.

Short of SBI finding something that screams out for a new trial, there are some that will refuse to believe the report.

I wouldn't want to be any of them in this situation. It is a no win no matter how it tumbles.

I am curious to hear the report. I'm not expecting the report to find misconduct that had any weight on the jury verdict, I'd still like to know if texts were sent to a hairdresser about how the count was going and if not, then what the heck happens to someone that starts nonsense rumors like this and causes tax payer dollars to investigate this activity.

That's what I'm waiting to hear about - what really happened.

IMO

Well, I don't for one moment think the SBI will sweep this under the rug. They will report their findings as they are. Now what JS does with it, I have no opinion. I am expecting the report to show misconduct but how that impacted the decision, I can not say. And of course, this is all my opinion. If JY had been found not guilty, do you not think that the messages would be different here. There would be outrage at any hint of misconduct. I am not pro or con JY, but I am an advocate for juror's following their instructions not to communicate with the outside about this case, particularly during deliberations. Again JMO.

 

[SteelerGirl43]

Well, I don't for one moment think the SBI will sweep this under the rug. They will report their findings as they are. Now what JS does with it, I have no opinion. I am expecting the report to show misconduct but how that impacted the decision, I can not say. And of course, this is all my opinion. If JY had been found not guilty, do you not think for one moment that the messages would be different here. I am not pro or con JY, but I am an advocate for juror's heading their instructions not to communicate with the outside about this case, particularly during deliberations. Again JMO.

BBM

You are 110% correct...

 

[Madeleine74]

I think an allegation has to be investigated regardless of the verdict. Even if it was a hung jury the court would need to find out if the allegation was true or not. Regardless of who supports which side, there is a responsibility for the system to have checks and balances and make sure the process is valid.

According to what GritGuy posted from the legal statute that deals with juror misconduct, and based on Grit's legal opinion, this particular type and detail of (alleged) misconduct (i.e. texting the number of the voting split IF it happened), would not have affected the jury's outcome. Now if a juror were soliciting or taking feedback from someone outside, either during the case or during the deliberations, that would be a whole different matter.

 

[Wolfpack]

*snipped by me*

According to what GritGuy posted from the legal statute that deals with juror misconduct, and based on Grit's legal opinion, this particular type and detail of (alleged) misconduct (i.e. texting the number of the voting split IF it happened), would not have affected the jury's outcome. Now if a juror were soliciting or taking feedback from someone outside, either during the case or during the deliberations, that would be a whole different matter.

I think this is accurate, and likely will be how JS sees the situation IF there turns out to be something.

However, there was a recent case in Arizona that resulted in a mistrial because the juror tweeted "we're almost done" or something of that nature about an hour before the verdict was read. The holding stated that the very act of sending a message, regardless of whether or not anyone replied, invited conversation, and as such, resulted in a mistrial.

I think that in this situation, Judge Stephens would blow his top over juror misconduct, but not necessarily call a mistrial. I for one, am just ready to shut the book on this case.

 

[fran]

I have full faith in our jury system and I am confident that judge's who work on cases involving capital crimes, will be SURE they have all their I's dotted and T's crossed. They are NOT going to leave room, if they can help it, for judicial error to pop up years down the road. Just like the jury did, I trust the judge to take his work seriously. Especially when this impacts the REST of a person's life.

As we were here before with the Cooper case, with a different judge of course, I thought I'd just look around about Judge Stephens. I also wanted to see if the SBI has said anything. Below is a link on where the SBI announced the beginning of their investigation and then a link to a rating Judge Stephens gets from the local lawyers who appear before him.

Oh, and just like with the Cooper case, I do NOT feel this allegation has merit. But kudos to the NC legal system to make SURE this alleged posting is bogus. What a coinky-dink that the Cooper case and Young case alleged jury misconduct allegations involve a 'hair dresser.'

I do NOT believe this will be swept under the rug. Judge Stephens feels that the integrity of the Court comes first. He's not going to tarnish the NC court system. :nono:

JMHO
fran



http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-06/...-trial-juror-misconduct-verdict?_s=PM:JUSTICE

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation said Tuesday it will look into alleged juror misconduct in the murder trial of Jason Young....

quote from Judge Stephens: "In spite of the fact that this type of gossip is usually baseless, any information reported to the court that challenges the integrity of a jury verdict has to be investigated."





http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/jan/03/new-nc-bar-report-rates-judges-re-election-ar-1774555/

Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens, who oversaw the first Jason Young trial that ended in a mistrial, drew strong marks from attorneys.

Stephens had an overall rating of 4.51, the highest rating of the 13 Superior Court judges on the list.

 

[Allusonz]

I don't think, for some, it will matter if SBI comes back and says that their investigation didn't turn up anything misconduct activity by the jury.

SBI will get accused of sweeping it under the rug to save the conviction and avoid a new trial.

On the other hand, if they do report misconduct, and Judge Stephens finds it does not meet the standard required to warrant a new trial, he will be accused of sweeping it under the rug.

Short of SBI finding something that screams out for a new trial, there are some that will refuse to believe the report.

I wouldn't want to be any of them in this situation. It is a no win no matter how it tumbles.

I am curious to hear the report. I'm not expecting the report to find misconduct that had any weight on the jury verdict, I'd still like to know if texts were sent to a hairdresser about how the count was going and if not, then what the heck happens to someone that starts nonsense rumors like this and causes tax payer dollars to investigate this activity.

That's what I'm waiting to hear about - what really happened.

IMO

BBM

I believe that there will be an in depth investigation.

I can state that if this investigation is completed the way I anticipate it will be done, that I will accept their report. I as well believe that there is enough scrutiny due to allegations in other areas and they will go out of their way to ensure it is done properly.

 

[Allusonz]

I have full faith in our jury system and I am confident that judge's who work on cases involving capital crimes, will be SURE they have all their I's dotted and T's crossed. They are NOT going to leave room, if they can help it, for judicial error to pop up years down the road. Just like the jury did, I trust the judge to take his work seriously. Especially when this impacts the REST of a person's life.

As we were here before with the Cooper case, with a different judge of course, I thought I'd just look around about Judge Stephens. I also wanted to see if the SBI has said anything. Below is a link on where the SBI announced the beginning of their investigation and then a link to a rating Judge Stephens gets from the local lawyers who appear before him.

Oh, and just like with the Cooper case, I do NOT feel this allegation has merit. But kudos to the NC legal system to make SURE this alleged posting is bogus. What a coinky-dink that the Cooper case and Young case alleged jury misconduct allegations involve a 'hair dresser.'

I do NOT believe this will be swept under the rug. Judge Stephens feels that the integrity of the Court comes first. He's not going to tarnish the NC court system. :nono:

JMHO
fran



http://articles.cnn.com/2012-03-06/...-trial-juror-misconduct-verdict?_s=PM:JUSTICE

The North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation said Tuesday it will look into alleged juror misconduct in the murder trial of Jason Young....

quote from Judge Stephens: "In spite of the fact that this type of gossip is usually baseless, any information reported to the court that challenges the integrity of a jury verdict has to be investigated."





http://www2.nbc17.com/news/2012/jan/03/new-nc-bar-report-rates-judges-re-election-ar-1774555/

Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens, who oversaw the first Jason Young trial that ended in a mistrial, drew strong marks from attorneys.

Stephens had an overall rating of 4.51, the highest rating of the 13 Superior Court judges on the list.

Judge Stephens is a very respected judge.

I think that is why I was surprised specifically with 2 things that he did.

The most significant one was the addition of the 2nd degree murder "in concert" charge. That one truly shocked me.

 

[gracielee]

Been keeping up on the local news the many various SBI investigations ongoing prior to the JLY case. Everything from judicial misconduct in the DUI cases to misuse of funds in state government agencies. They seem to be quite busy. Hopefully we will hear something soon on this case, but as it is, they appear to have many irons in the fire.

 

[Madeleine74]

The most significant one was the addition of the 2nd degree murder "in concert" charge. That one truly shocked me.

I think it used to be the law that a judge in NC had to include the 2nd degree as an option in a 1st degree murder case. If memory serves, it's no longer required, but is something that is up to the judge's discretion. It's something that could be considered a judicial error if not included, depending on the case. It's not a conspiracy, it's the judge's interpretation of the applicability of the law on a case. We saw this done in the Cooper case, where that judge also added the 2nd degree option.

"In concert" is separate and doesn't limit someone to 2nd degree. That was added to the charge instructions because with the fact of two sets of shoe prints a jury could infer that two people were at the murder. And if a jury had decided that was the scenario, JY still would have been guilty of 1st degree murder if he was determined to be one of the parties there. The "in concert" addition provides clarity and direction to the jury if they need it. Obviously this jury did not appear to believe anyone else was involved (based on their comments after the trial).

 

[Just the Fax]

Just in: The superior court judge who ordered an sbi probe into possible juror misconduct in the first-degree murder trial of jason young said friday that the investigation is not complete but that so far, there's been no evidence of any wrongdoing


wral

 

[gracielee]

Just In: The Superior Court judge who ordered an SBI probe into possible juror misconduct in the first-degree murder trial of Jason Young said Friday that the investigation is not complete but that so far, there's been no evidence of any wrongdoing. Young was convicted March 5 in the November 2006 beating death of his pregnant wife, Michelle Young, in their Raleigh home.
Keep up with breaking news at http://www.wral.com/

 

[borndem]

I don't think, for some, it will matter if SBI comes back and says that their investigation didn't turn up anything misconduct activity by the jury.

SBI will get accused of sweeping it under the rug to save the conviction and avoid a new trial.

On the other hand, if they do report misconduct, and Judge Stephens finds it does not meet the standard required to warrant a new trial, he will be accused of sweeping it under the rug.

Short of SBI finding something that screams out for a new trial, there are some that will refuse to believe the report.

I wouldn't want to be any of them in this situation. It is a no win no matter how it tumbles.

I am curious to hear the report. I'm not expecting the report to find misconduct that had any weight on the jury verdict, I'd still like to know if texts were sent to a hairdresser about how the count was going and if not, then what the heck happens to someone that starts nonsense rumors like this and causes tax payer dollars to investigate this activity.

That's what I'm waiting to hear about - what really happened.

IMO

BBM

Sadly, Talina, I have to agree with what you said...

We've now heard the 1st chapter of the SBI's investigation of the jurors, and so far, nothing out-of-order has been found. I wasn't expecting to hear differently from what has been reported, but it does indeed only take one to make a big mess.

I do want to hear, however, "the rest of the story," as you do -- Who started this rumor, or if it is based in fact, Who heard What from Whom. And if it was invented simply to try to stir up a rumble, that person should be held accountable in some way. JS has already made it plain that he will deal with the Who's of it.

Let's hope the additional investigations reveal that someone with too much time on his or her hands started the ball rolling with a perverse imagination coupled with some kind of frustration, or perhaps something worse.

And I do think that the SBI tech gurus will find the source of the communication -- that is, if it does turn out to be more than a word-of-mouth statement to get attention and to stir things up. Then JS may have his own opinion...

- - - - - - - - - - - -

​

All that aside, we people who distribute info, pictures, opinions, etc., etc., online, must learn that if you enter it and push that SEND button, then you have published it, and that you can, may, or will be held accountable. Online communication is not anonymous nor without responsibility.

I'll get off my soapbox now....:rant:

 

[Madeleine74]

There were earlier comments this investigation should only take a few days or a week or two at the outset, and if it took longer, that must mean there is validity to the Facebook reports about a juror texting.

I found this part of WRAL's article interesting, as it gives the reason why the investigation is taking weeks. For some odd reason companies don't just snap to and respond within minutes of being asked for information for investigators. Imagine that.


"In a memo filed Friday to defense attorneys and prosecutors involved in the case, he said that investigators are still awaiting a review of Internet data that has been delayed because of difficulty in obtaining IP addresses from Internet and social media providers.

All of the jurors, however, have been interviewed, in addition to a number of other people, Stephens said."


Full article at: http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10850701/

 

[nursebeeme]

North Carolina's court system is posting rules in courthouses across the state to remind jurors about what they cannot do when it comes to communicating with others.

A spokesman for the North Carolina Administrative Office of the Courts said Monday that the move comes after conversations with employees in the state court system and from recent news headlines.

Last month, a Superior Court judge in Wake County ordered the State Bureau of Investigation to look into allegations that a juror was texting someone outside the jury about the progress of deliberations in the first-degree murder trial of Jason Young, who was found guilty March 5 of killing his wife in November 2006.

The SBI is still investigating the claims.

here are the new rules they are posting in courtrooms:

1. TURN OFF your mobile devices while court is in session.
2. DO NOT talk to anyone, or let anyone talk to you about the case.
3. DO NOT receive or send electronic communications about the case.
4. DO NOT seek outside information from the Internet or other sources.

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/10936084/


the article goes on to talk about another case was thrown out in arkansas because a juror was tweeting from the courtroom!

really?

In my opinion they just need to ban cells phones from the courtroom.

 

[gracielee]

WRAL is reporting NO juror misconduct found in the Jason Young trial.

 

[gracielee]

Sorry, no link yet, BREAKING NEWS!

 

[CA Lady]

Jury misconduct allegations in Jason Young retrial deemed false

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/11114478/