State vs Jason Lynn Young 6-14-11

[Madeleine74]

That is true. I have never honestly followed a case like this before, this was just so intriguing that I started and couldn't stop. I wasnt sure how much they could "tie it together" without it seeming leading, or suggestive. Tell me more about that?

They can't be leading (or arguing) during opening or during testimony. All they can do is enter evidence through witness testimony and get the witness to explain that evidence. Arguing and telling the story of what it all means comes during closing arguments.

 

[No Coincidence]

They can't be leading (or arguing) during opening or during testimony. All they can do is enter evidence through witness testimony and get the witness to explain that evidence. Arguing and telling the story of what it all means comes during closing arguments.

So, during opening statements they discuss what they will show in evidence, strictly fact. In closing they are allowed to speculate as to what all of the evidence might show? I guess I have never really watched a trial through and through to be knowledgable enough! kind of embarassed :loser:

I usually just read the stories online and follow the news stories, but this forum has made me hooked for life.

 

[jilly]

I am amazed the state said they may rest by Friday.

So am I.
Do you really think Linda will testify? I somehow doubt it.

 

[Madeleine74]

Yeah, reading stories and getting case info from the media is a crapshoot at best. Always best to get case info from the legal documents and through watching testimony.

But yes, you're correct. Opening statements = roadmap of what ea. side believes will be shown in testimony. It does not have to include everything in the case. Usually the highlights. During closing, they can argue their case. Why the jury should vote a certain way, the criteria, how the evidence fits (or doesn't fit).

They use everything they can to bring it home, within the rules of the court. There are rules to everything that happens in a courtroom. People often don't understand that, but that's why certain evidence makes it in and other evidence (or even witnesses) are not allowed. Gotta play by the court's rules, like it or not.

 

[jilly]

Never use a news site and expect to get accurate case information because they, more often than not, tend to get the details wrong.

There was no "clump of hair" in MY's hand. A clump of hair (her own hair) was found underneath her body.

In her hand was found ONE hair, it appeared to be her own.

None of the hair tested matched JLY or anyone else.

A simple thanks was not enough. THANK YOU. I've had to miss today and I was very worried about this....until now!

 

[Just the Fax]

So am I.
Do you really think Linda will testify? I somehow doubt it.

Nancy Cooper's mother had powerful, emotional testimony.
Linda will tell Michelle's story and recount the many times MY turned to her because of her bad marriage. She was around a lot, so she saw their interaction first hand. She will tell about paying for the funeral and not getting a dime from JLY as he promised. I will be shocked if Linda does not testify.

 

[No Coincidence]

Thanks, Madeleine! I like the inquiry and curiosity required to be part of the prosecution in cases like these. I am intrigued by the lack of worry from JY, and it scares me to think that he was unaccounted for in the hours surrounding his loving wifes death. I am worried that the prosecution has not proved with complete certainty the guilt of JY... assuming the jury can't consider his carefree attitude and unwillingness to work with LE. But when the end of the day comes, the jury is made up of humans, too! And it is only human nature to wonder why someone wouldn't wonder where his daughter was, or what happened to his wife to result in this tragedy...

 

[Madeleine74]

The jury can consider anything that came up during witness testimony, including what they heard about JLY not cooperating with police right from the beginning. Behaviors of the defendant are definitely evidence too--sometimes very strong and compelling evidence. Juries look at all of it (or at least are entitled to look at and consider it). The prosecution has not finished yet, nor have they put on any rebuttal testimony to whatever the defense will present. It ain't over till it's over so hold on for the ride.

 

[No Coincidence]

The jury can consider anything that came up during witness testimony, including what they heard about JLY not cooperating with police right from the beginning. Behaviors of the defendant are definitely evidence too--sometimes very strong and compelling evidence. Juries look at all of it (or at least are entitled to look at and consider it). The prosecution has not finished yet, nor have they put on any rebuttal testimony to whatever the defense will present. It ain't over till it's over so hold on for the ride.

So executing his right to not speak with investigators CAN be used against him? Or are you saying that the jury will think whatever they want about it, and it just cant be openly stated that he refused to speak.

 

[Madeleine74]

So executing his right to not speak with investigators CAN be used against him? Or are you saying that the jury will think whatever they want about it, and it just cant be openly stated that he refused to speak.

The state can ponder aloud, during their closing arguments, why a grieving husband would refuse to talk with police even one time. In testimony we've heard that he did not speak with any L.E. person, not even when they called him on his way back to Raleigh. So yes the jury can think of that what they want and the state can mention it because it is part of the testimonial record.

The jury is not to consider whether a defendant ever takes the witness stand to testify and they are not to hold that against them.