Jason Young to get new trial #4

[Madeleine74]

I don't believe Gracie will be excluded from any future 3rd trial (if there is one) because of the prior judicial ruling which already stated she can testify. The judge (Stephens in the prior 2 trials) ruled that a jury can evaluate her as a witness and listen to her testimony just as they would any other witness. It will be up to a(nother) jury to evaluate all the evidence including all the witness testimony.

Doesn't matter what Interweb posters decry, the inclusion of Gracie as a witness was deemed legal before, and there's nothing in the appeal ruling that would preclude her testifying again.

And the obsession with Gracie continues...which demonstrates just how damaging her testimony is seen by those who believe JY is innocent. She's not the star witness, but she sure is considered the #1 witness on the Interweb forum.

 

[Landonsmom02]

[modsnip] Just because a loved one is incarcarated doesn't mean they are innocent [modsnip]. It's true their are some innocent people locked up and that is horrible, but that's not the case in all.........especially here! IMO

I also doubt JY will take a plea......if one is offered to him. [modsnip]. As a tax payer of NC I'm glad to pay for a new trial for him and MP. Doesn't bother me one bit. They are both guilty and belong behind bars where they can't hurt anyone else. IMO

 

[JusticeFever]

Yes, I'm quite aware of this and stated as such if you had completely read my post. Yes, I did omit the wrongful death suit in my quckness to reply. I should have stated "Defendant is deemed to have admitted in the wrongful death civil action and which had been alleged in the child custody proceeding. "

The point I tried to make in my post was the embellishment of information posted by some here. Nowhere in this ruling was JY stated as innocent and I stand by this.......he WAS granted a new trial. But nowhere did it state the entire trial was prejudicial. The Appelllate Court found no error in the other two issues, daycare workers testimony and Judge Stephens jury instructions. Nowhere did I mention validation of other evidence. I only said there is still much evidence and there is. Circumstantial or not, there is still much evidence in this case.

As far as I know, where I come from Judges are appointed after law school , passing the bar, and becoming attorneys. I'm not sure what the procedures are on other planets.

If you will go back to other trials, Dan Boyce is vocal there as well. Maybe he likes the spotlight......I don't know. Any insinuation DA's office and/or court system is fearful of JY is incorrect. As for a third trial, guess we'll wait and see.

Could you please give me an example how anyone has embellished information here, when I am pretty sure I almost always use a link to an article or testimony @ WRAL, even sometimes when it isn't necessary just for that very purpose of not posting anything that isn't true or embellishing it.
Thanks.

 

[JusticeFever]

I do think that the defense missed an opportunity to have Gracie's testimony thrown out also. Or maybe they are going to object again and use that as an appeal option if a new trial goes against Jason. The response to her testimony by several who feel that Gracie is solid goes to the heart of why we get wrongful convictions based upon eye witness testimony. Juries in their weighing the credibility of eye witnesses have gotten it wrong so many times. It is not funny any way you look at it.

Glenn

In the appeal , it says the defense was not aware of Gracie's full medical condition until after the first trial , so I guess it was after she took the stand and disclosed it.
Why was this information withheld from them before that? Or, did the state also not know
the extent of Gracie's automobile accident and brain injury? Interesting.

 

[tarheellvr]

Could you please give me an example how anyone has embellished information here, when I am pretty sure I almost always use a link to an article or testimony @ WRAL, even sometimes when it isn't necessary just for that very purpose of not posting anything that isn't true or embellishing it
Thanks.

Justice...I have no problems with your posts and I hope you know that. Without calling names and risking violating TOS, I will only say some posters here enjoy saying JY is innocent and the Appeals Decision says so. The same decision says he is innocent and he was framed, etc, etc, etc. I don't want to be redundant, but never, ever does it say anywhere he is innocent, was framed, or had a completely prejudicial trial. New trial based on one error, yes and that's all. The other two issue were upheld.

I do think there will be a third trial and I don't think he would plead. I also have the utmost confidence DA's office is ready for "round 3"

 

[oenophile]

I don't believe Gracie will be excluded from any future 3rd trial (if there is one) because of the prior judicial ruling which already stated she can testify. The judge (Stephens in the prior 2 trials) ruled that a jury can evaluate her as a witness and listen to her testimony just as they would any other witness. It will be up to a(nother) jury to evaluate all the evidence including all the witness testimony.

Doesn't matter what Interweb posters decry, the inclusion of Gracie as a witness was deemed legal before, and there's nothing in the appeal ruling that would preclude her testifying again.

Count me in as someone that believes Gracie SHOULD be included as a witness, as her perspective is certainly valid evidence. I see no reason whatsoever to exclude her. It is up to the defense to impeach her testimony if they believe it is false, either intentionally or unintentionally.

 

[oenophile]

And now there are accusations of LE "losing" items because it doesn't fit their evidence? It seems to me that some people think that all LEO/DA/Judges are crooked. Not only in this case but others as well.

Except that LE in NC has proven itself to be crooked, as have DA's. It is the placing of LE and the Prosecutor's office on a pedestal that creates erroneous convictions and undermines the judicial process.

 

[Boodles]

GC was employed at 4 Bros, conducted customer transactions, and was on duty and said she saw JY at ~5:30am on the morning in question. You can choose not to believe her. So can jurors. But she exists, is a party to this case as a witness. Just because one may not like what she says does not mean her testimony should be excluded. It is what it is.

 

[JusticeFever]

[modsnip] Just because a loved one is incarcarated doesn't mean they are innocent and that the big bad LE framed them. It's true their are some innocent people locked up and that is horrible, but that's not the case in all.........especially here! IMO

I also doubt JY will take a plea......if one is offered to him. [modsnip] As a tax payer of NC I'm glad to pay for a new trial for him and MP. Doesn't bother me one bit. They are both guilty and belong behind bars where they can't hurt anyone else. IMO

[modsnip] Her name is Mrs. Young or Pat Young, and yes she is Jason's mother[modsnip]. She is also not on trial.

JMO

 

[JusticeFever]

Justice...I have no problems with your posts and I hope you know that. Without calling names and risking violating TOS, I will only say some posters here enjoy saying JY is innocent and the Appeals Decision says so. The same decision says he is innocent and he was framed, etc, etc, etc. I don't want to be redundant, but never, ever does it say anywhere he is innocent, was framed, or had a completely prejudicial trial. New trial based on one error, yes and that's all. The other two issue were upheld.

I do think there will be a third trial and I don't think he would plead. I also have the utmost confidence DA's office is ready for "round 3"

With a case that has been going on this long, with not just 1 trial, but 2 trials, anything that is posted incorrectly or embellished is pretty much going to be called out.

Jason's status , right now, is more or less up in the air, he is most likely following in the direction of Brad Cooper, right back to Raleigh jail for a new trial, unless something we
don't know about happens before that.

I am glad you do not take my posts personally, that is and has never been my intent.




JMO

 

[Landonsmom02]

Is it really necessary to call Jason's Mother Mommy? Her name is Mrs. Young or Pat Young, and yes she is Jason's mother, but I find this disrespectful. She is also not on trial.

JMO

Mommy,Mother,Mama,Mom...it's all the same. Sorry you find this disrespectful......but isn't that how he refers to her?

Funny you say PY is not on trial.................hmmmmmmm

 

[JusticeFever]

Except that LE in NC has proven itself to be crooked, as have DA's. It is the placing of LE and the Prosecutor's office on a pedestal that creates erroneous convictions and undermines the judicial process.

:goodpost: The reason we are here in JY's case is because of a judicial error, nothing more, nothing less. But, you make a great point, NC has a history of cases that need to be reviewed or looked at it , again..

 

[JusticeFever]

Mommy,Mother,Mama,Mom...it's all the same. Sorry you find this disrespectful......but isn't that how he refers to her?

Funny you say PY is not on trial.................hmmmmmmm

It may be how Jason, Kim, and Heather would refer to her, but not an outsider.

 

[JusticeFever]

GC was employed at 4 Bros, conducted customer transactions, and was on duty and said she saw JY at ~5:30am on the morning in question. You can choose not to believe her. So can jurors. But she exists, is a party to this case as a witness. Just because one may not like what she says does not mean her testimony should be excluded. It is what it is.

It has nothing to do with whether I like what she says or doesn't say. It has to do with giving an accurate description of Jason, something she has never been able to do.

But, I do need to start referring to her as Gracie Calhoun as you call her.....as she is happily remarried now.
Sorry!


JMO

 

[MyBelle]

As others have noted here, the big error was the judgement in the civil suit being introduced in the trial, and JY is once again innocent until proven guilty (unless the Supreme Court of NC decides to review the case, then that could be reversed in theory, but highly doubtful).

But the big point that I want to make is that just because only ONE error was determined during the trial, that does not validate the rest of the evidence. What is says is that this piece of evidence (introduced in error) was so prejudicial that it impacted the jury's ability to weigh the rest of the evidence. If you remove the prejudicial evidence and allow the jury to consider only the permitted evidence, then the result may have been a different verdict, such as in the first trial. The appeals court justices did not, in any way, say that the rest of the evidence pointed to JY's guilt, only that it was allowed to be used during the trial.

Exactly. The presumption of innocence still applies to Jason as far as the Court is concerned. Everyone has a protected right to a fair trial AND an impartial jury. The second jury was not impartial because they were given highly prejudicial information and allowed to consider it. The panel really slammed the State for entering those civil cases. Lorrin Freeman actually read to the jury passages from the lawsuit's allegations. I still can't figure out why Lorrin Freeman allowed someone else to become the executor of Michelle's estate when her husband had not been charged with a crime and she had a Will.

Secondly, the State cannot articulate a corroborative purpose for this evidence. These civil complaints would only be useful in corroborating the opinions of guilt made by Michelle’s mother, Linda Fisher. Linda’s opinions are themselves inadmissible, leaving no proper corroborative purpose.

http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2014/04/01/13529333/April_1_2014_Appeals_Court_Opinion.pdf

 

[MyBelle]

Is it really necessary to call Jason's Mother Mommy? Her name is Mrs. Young or Pat Young, and yes she is Jason's mother, but I find this disrespectful. She is also not on trial.

JMO

I find it disrespectful as well and won't be using that term to apply to either Grandmother of baby Rylan.

 

[Madeleine74]

Except that LE in NC has proven itself to be crooked, as have DA's. It is the placing of LE and the Prosecutor's office on a pedestal that creates erroneous convictions and undermines the judicial process.

Who are all these crooked LE people in NC? There have been some as well as a bad DA. But All? No. Just no. I've seen some ineptness though. Fortunately the vast majority of people do a good job and are honest, decent folk.

A blanket statement like "LE in NC has proven itself to be crooked" is simply false. There are honest and dishonest people in every profession and honest and dishonest people in every walk of life. I could say that "Lawyers in NC have proven themselves to be crooked" Because there have been a bunch of defense attorneys who have done dishonest things. Nothing is 100%. Yes, every.single.LE.person should be 100% honest 100% of the time. And we know that doesn't happen and it's not limited to NC. It happens everywhere in the world. We know the system is not perfect. It should be, but it isn't. But neither is every person in LE corrupt. Sorry, but they just aren't.

No one has put anyone on a friggin' pedestal. Respect for those who have a long-standing record of good service? Sure. But people are human and humans can and do make errors. It doesn't make them corrupt when they do make an error (like Judge Stephens as one example).

Of course the pointing of fingers and insisting that everyone or most or a significant number who work in any capacity with the court system or LE or any other government agency is corrupt and are looking to put innocent people behind bars is a common ploy by those who either have a specific agenda or live in a paranoid place filled with wide-reaching conspiracies who are trying to generate more paranoia with a big side serving of emotion. Yes, there have been wrongful convictions, and I'm not saying it has never happened. It has, and I'm so glad for organizations like the Innocence Project. But has it happened as much as some claim and to include nearly every male spousal killer in NC and beyond? No. (and before any panties get in a wad, that's a general comment, not directed to you Oenophile, or any specific person living or dead).

The logic used is akin to this: People cheat on their taxes and that's a fact. Therefore when you do your taxes you cheat on them (because people do cheat). And if you happen to make a mistake on your return that's cheating too. Because if it's not exactly perfect it means you cheated. There are no mistakes, only cheating.

That would be an insane statement to make because there are some people who cheat and a whole lot more who don't. The cheaters don't turn the honest folks into cheaters and it doesn't make honest people who don't cheat, cheaters. It doesn't make someone who made an error a cheater either. There are laws against cheating and consequences for those who do cheat and are discovered. There are also processes for people who made an error.
And there are laws and consequences for breaking the law for other professions, like LE.

 

[MyBelle]

I will have to go back and check the search warrants. I think that LE obtained that video. I would like to see the videos of the hallway around the 11:19 mark and around the time the camera was bumped up toward the ceiling. I am also wondering how tight that camera was on its mount and if Elmer Goad actually made it looser while plugging the lens back in. Those cameras are heavier at the back end the way they are mounted and once loosened vibration from things such as doors closing could have made it move upward on its own.

Glenn

Very interesting. I look forward to finding out what those search warrants do say because the testimony from the hotel employee was that the video was functioning except as they noted.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

The state is under no obligation to play every piece of video they get nor show every single picture they got or was taken in this or any case to a jury.

They are obligated to turn over to the defense everything they get as part of the discovery process. The defense is free to use evidence, within the rules of the court, to impeach a witness and that could include bits of evidence the state didn't use as part of their case.

 

[MyBelle]

Count me in as someone that believes Gracie SHOULD be included as a witness, as her perspective is certainly valid evidence. I see no reason whatsoever to exclude her. It is up to the defense to impeach her testimony if they believe it is false, either intentionally or unintentionally.

I hope they do call her as a witness because she's the only witness the State produced and she obviously was confused. I think the jury needs to know the LE tactics that helped her identify Jason.

JMO