Jason Young to get new trial #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Talking about Retrials or Plea Deals in NC:

Any one of these 3,.Young, Cooper, or Peterson could be offered a plea deal at any time, anything is possible. I think it is highly likely at least one of them will be, and for right now that is Peterson.
And, I know how plea deals work, Raven Abaroa just took an Alford Plea. You also get time served credited as well. I doubt any plea would be for as long as 10 years in any of these cases though, imo.
 
JusticeFever said:
Talking about Retrials or Plea Deals in NC:

Any one of these 3,.Young, Cooper, or Peterson could be offered a plea deal at any time, anything is possible. I think it is highly likely at least one of them will be, and for now my guess is Peterson.
And, I know how plea deals work, Raven Abaroa just took an Alford Plea. You get a time served credit as well.
Click to expand...

If Jason has an option to take an Alford plea for second degree, I think that he would be wise to take it. I don't say this because I believe that he is guilty, but because I think it's time for him to play his cards in such a way that he eliminates the risk of spending the rest of his life in prison. The problem I see with a second degree plea is that the theory of the murder includes that he drove for hours with the sole intent of committing murder. That can never be anything less than first degree murder.
 
otto said:
If Jason has an option to take an Alford plea for second degree, I think that he would be wise to take it. I don't say this because I believe that he is guilty, but because I think it's time for him to play his cards in such a way that he eliminates the risk of spending the rest of his life in prison. The problem I see with a second degree plea is that the theory of the murder includes that he drove for hours with the sole intent of committing murder. That can never be anything less than first degree murder.
Click to expand...

Agree completely. At least one of them is going to get their deal if they haven't already.
Maybe there won't be 3 high profile trials in NC, after all. Who knows?
 
otto said:
If Jason has an option to take an Alford plea for second degree, I think that he would be wise to take it. I don't say this because I believe that he is guilty, but because I think it's time for him to play his cards in such a way that he eliminates the risk of spending the rest of his life in prison. The problem I see with a second degree plea is that the theory of the murder includes that he drove for hours with the sole intent of committing murder. That can never be anything less than first degree murder.
Click to expand...

Was second degree a possibility at either of the first two trials?

I think a better way for Jason to play his cards is to ask for a bench trial. No Judge is going to find Gracie credible after she tells him a doctor re-implanted her brain after it splattered on the sidewalk.

JMO
 
MyBelle said:
Was second degree a possibility at either of the first two trials?

I think a better way for Jason to play his cards is to ask for a bench trial. No Judge is going to find Gracie credible after she tells him a doctor re-implanted her brain after it splattered on the sidewalk.

JMO
Click to expand...

I honestly do not know how Gracie was allowed to testify, a man's life is/was at stake.
Maybe this time, they can call someone to the stand to describe her injury and the memory problems she admits to having. She was so mixed up on her testimony and so wrong about someone else being there in the store, but I do not blame her or think she was lying. She was just confused and wanting to help. What I don't understand though is the decision to make her look different(hair, clothes, jewelry, makeup) from Trial 1 to Trial 2. Why couldn't she just be herself?
 
JusticeFever said:
I honestly do not know how Gracie was allowed to testify, a man's life is/was at stake.
Maybe this time, they can call someone to the stand to describe her injury and the memory problems she admits to having. She was so mixed up on her testimony and so wrong about someone else being there in the store, but I do not blame her or think she was lying. She was just confused and wanting to help. What I don't understand though is the decision to make her look different(hair, clothes, jewelry, makeup) from Trial 1 to Trial 2. Why couldn't she just be herself?
Click to expand...

I think the prosecution wanted her to look more credible in the second trial. Looks can be deceiving.
 
O/T What happened to the old thread? Why was it closed?

Sent from your mom's smartphone
 
jova33 said:
O/T What happened to the old thread? Why was it closed?

Sent from your mom's smartphone
Click to expand...

Mods just opened a new one because Thread #1 was getting full.
They usually open new ones when threads get about 1200 posts or so.
Still the same thread, just part deux....
 
So anyway, anyone just joining us, JY had two trials for the murder of his wife. First trial, the jury deadlocked. Second trial, jury convicted, but this conviction was overturned do to errors during the trial and his third trial, which will probably happen, won't be until sometime next year.

Many believe he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, but a few of us believe there wasn't enough evidence to prove he is guilty.

Enjoy the show!

Sent from your mom's smartphone
 
JusticeFever said:
I honestly do not know how Gracie was allowed to testify, a man's life is/was at stake.
Maybe this time, they can call someone to the stand to describe her injury and the memory problems she admits to having. She was so mixed up on her testimony and so wrong about someone else being there in the store, but I do not blame her or think she was lying. She was just confused and wanting to help. What I don't understand though is the decision to make her look different(hair, clothes, jewelry, makeup) from Trial 1 to Trial 2. Why couldn't she just be herself?
Click to expand...

Allowing Gracie to testify is just a reflection of Stephens bias. He ignored the fact that photo line-up procedures were ignored because he knew the prosecution was desperate.

The defense did object and I think the next time around they will file an objection and submit her testimony about her brain on the sidewalk. I agree, the woman sincerely believed it to be true.

JMO
 
MyBelle said:
Allowing Gracie to testify is just a reflection of Stephens bias. He ignored the fact that photo line-up procedures were ignored because he knew the prosecution was desperate.

The defense did object and I think the next time around they will file an objection and submit her testimony about her brain on the sidewalk. I agree, the woman sincerely believed it to be true.

JMO
Click to expand...

She did. She believed that her brains spilled onto the street and doctors put them back into her head. Apparently this is what her parents told her at the time of the accident (I'm assuming), and she has not progressed in her reasoning since that time. Was she 5 years old? To put forth that she is susceptible (easily affected, influenced) to suggestion is an understatement. Police knew her limitations prior to presenting her with one, rather than six, suspect photos. Police knew that she believed the suspect to be her height, but they still presented her as a witness to Jason at the gas station. How long after the incident did she recall this suspect information?

Did the defence object to this witness and did the Judge rule that she was a good witness? Was this a bit like the day care worker's description of a child manipulating objects, her observations, her discussion about this with another day care worker, and their interpretations/impressions? Did they both testify? What did the first day care worker tell the second day care worker about how the child was manipulating toys? If the defence did not object to the gas station witness testimony, they dropped the ball. If the defence did object and the Judge saw no problem with the credibility of the woman whose brains spilled onto the pavement, then we have another example of poor judgement that is most likely influenced by tunnel vision/bias.
 
otto said:
She did. She believed that her brains spilled onto the street and doctors put them back into her head. Apparently this is what her parents told her at the time of the accident (I'm assuming), and she has not progressed in her reasoning since that time. Was she 5 years old? To put forth that she is susceptible (easily affected, influenced) to suggestion is an understatement. Police knew her limitations prior to presenting her with one, rather than six, suspect photos. Police knew that she believed the suspect to be her height, but they still presented her as a witness to Jason at the gas station. How long after the incident did she recall this suspect information?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure but I doubt it will matter. Next time, the attorneys will state their objection on the basis of the flawed procedure and submit her own testimony. I don't see any way the Judge will allow her to testify. I think her testimony lead to the hung jury in the first trial. Only a juror who prejudged Jason was guilty would even pretend to believe she was credible.

JMO
 
MyBelle said:
I'm not sure but I doubt it will matter. Next time, the attorneys will state their objection on the basis of the flawed procedure and submit her own testimony. I don't see any way the Judge will allow her to testify. I think her testimony lead to the hung jury in the first trial. Only a juror who prejudged Jason was guilty would even pretend to believe she was credible.

JMO
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "flawed procedure"? Does that relate to the questions about her initial testimony and video? ... conflicting testimony?
 
MyBelle said:
I'm not sure but I doubt it will matter. Next time, the attorneys will state their objection on the basis of the flawed procedure and submit her own testimony. I don't see any way the Judge will allow her to testify. I think her testimony lead to the hung jury in the first trial. Only a juror who prejudged Jason was guilty would even pretend to believe she was credible.

JMO
Click to expand...

Didn't Judge Stevens pre-judge Jason when he ruled him a "slayer", even though there was no evidence and Jason was a no show for the hearing?

Judge Stevens either believes that the gas station attendant is credible ... or is he inclined to accept any statement that supports his first ruling: that Jason is a slayer? Why wasn't a different Judge assigned to the case? Will the next trial be heard by the same Judge? The affidavits that were used to convince the Judge that Jason is a murderer related to his activity at parties ... where he apparently urinated in the corner of a friend's living room, had other wild parties, and he and Michelle disagreed about many things.
 
otto said:
What do you mean by "flawed procedure"? Does that relate to the questions about her initial testimony and video? ... conflicting testimony?
Click to expand...

"flawed procedure" in terms of the photo lineup and how it was used with Gracie.
 
MyBelle said:
"flawed procedure" in terms of the photo lineup and how it was used with Gracie.
Click to expand...

I believe they got by with this because NC didn't implement the standard of showing eyewitnesses 6 photo line-ups until after this crime was investigated.

They still could have done it at any time along the way though. I think it illustrates how the case hangs together by threads. It just doesn't work.
 
sunshine05 said:
I believe they got by with this because NC didn't implement the standard of showing eyewitnesses 6 photo line-ups until after this crime was investigated.

They still could have done it at any time along the way though. I think it illustrates how the case hangs together by threads. It just doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware the standard was implemented after the fact but it still makes no sense to allow it even then. The standard was implemented for a good reason. A real Catch-22, imo.
 
otto said:
I think the prosecution wanted her to look more credible in the second trial. Looks can be deceiving.
Click to expand...

I know that the state said they would talk to the Jurors from Trial 1 to find out where they went wrong. I am thinking they were told there wasn't enough evidence, so in Trial 2, they added the daycare stuff, more insurance stuff, etc.
I don't have a clue if Gracie was mentioned at all or how she figured into their deliberations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 162 more.
Total: 411 (members: 163, guests: 248)

Online statistics

Members online
163
Guests online
248
Total visitors
411
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,193
Messages
18,250,560
Members
234,554
Latest member
erhern
Back
Top