Jason Young to get new trial #4

[oenophile]

This is the testimony from Steve Hale, he is a PI, he worked for the WCSO for 26 years, and retired as a Det. Lieutenant.....

This is the video to show his findings from the Hampton Inn,(doors, etc) very very very impressive. IMO It is only 36.54..and it has discs full of photos of what he saw and did.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10791413/

Thank you. It doesn't address the newspaper thing but confirms the other aspects of the door.

 

[citygirl]

So, let's do back off Gracie. Let's back up to the camera at 11:20. (11:19:59) and get Jason from his room to that camera undetected. All I have heard so far is that LE investigators contended that Jason unplugged that camera. Did any of them actually demonstrate how that was possible??? Or was it just opinion?

After looking at the photos of Jason walking down the hallway and the one of the stairwell camera, plus the layout of the hotel, I do not see how he could have gotten to that camera from his room undetected. Somebody help me out here.

Glenn

Glenn, I hate to ask for links but I am confused. Where are you coming up with the 11:19:59 ? I have reviewed the camera pics. Thanks.

 

[citygirl]

Because it is common practice. I do it all the time, and I have been a road-warrior for work. There are lots of reasons to do it. The primary one is that quite often hotels have key cards inside the doors that enable the electricity for the room, and you keep the key in the card holder so you can continue using the heat/air conditioner/charger, like the hotel room that I'm typing this from now. It can become a habit to not completely lock your door and leave your key card in your room. In addition, if for whatever reason you get locked out, you can always go to the front desk to get a new one.

It is only common practice if you travel alot. And perhaps it is not common for everyone, but there are a lot of people that do exactly what he did regularly.

I have stayed in hotels that have that feature/ the key card controlling lights, etc. I have a sense that didn't exist in the Hampton Inn in 2006, otherwise it would have been noted? In that respect, why not request 2 key cards? I can see propping one's door open to go down the hall to the ice machine. The defendant claims he did it not once but twice, from one end of the hotel to the other. Do you find that reasonable in his circumstances? Again, it isn't bulky. You slip it in your pocket. Cold out, 21 mph winds that night. Do you really want to run the risk of getting locked outside? He claims he made his first trip to retrieve his computer charger. No video of that. Then he goes all the way to the west end to smoke his cigar? Why didn't he just go out the main entrance? It was set up for smokers. It doesn't make sense. My BIL travels a lot on business. I will ask him how often he exits leaving his key card in the room. Maybe he does? Sheesh. This post is way too long. MOO.

 

[MyBelle]

I agree that grilling her would have the adverse effect. The defense DID point out about his height and no hair. Pros rehabbed her on cross. She did say he had no coat, only shirt and jeans on. They also made it quite clear that he was not picked out of a line-up of photos. The second jury must not have had a problem with that. I am well aware of mistakenly identified people. It's a reach to apply this to JY. He went off on her and she REMEMBERED! Man, I'm thinking he never dreamed this would happen. But it did. And he is sentenced for life. MOO.

Of course the 2nd jury had no trouble ignoring the exculpatory facts. It has been ruled an unfair trial because prejudicial information was presented to the jury that greatly influenced their decision. We don't even know at this point whether there will be another trial. The prosecution may conclude they have no way to convict Young at this point.

It is a reach to pretend the jury was impartial when an appellate court has already decided otherwise.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

I actually agree with this. Gracie is as much a victim in this as anyone. It shouldn't be a matter of ripping her to shreds, but rather sufficiently determining how much of her testimony is accurate and how much of it is inaccurate due to memory issues, police suggestion and misplaced loyalties.

Ripping a witness to shreds is a figure of speech that applies to their testimony not to the witness. In a trial where a man is fighting for his life and freedom, a defense attorney has a duty to provide him the best defense possible and that includes attacking the testimony of an admitted [modsnip] and memory impaired witness. The prosecution put Gracie in that position, not the defense.

The appellate decision specifically mentions the fact that the defense was not aware of the extent of her mental disability until before the second trial. To put Gracie into the position as a key witness was cruel and may have humiliated her, imo.

After the first trial concluded, Defendant’s counsel learned that Ms. Calhoun had received disability benefits since she was a child. Ms. Calhoun stated that when
she was six-years-old, she was hit by a truck. This accident caused her brain to be dislodged from her skull and to fall onto the street. Doctors reinsert ed her brain and Ms. Calhoun stated that she has had memory problems her entire life as a result of the accident.

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

 

[MyBelle]

So, let's do back off Gracie. Let's back up to the camera at 11:20. (11:19:59) and get Jason from his room to that camera undetected. All I have heard so far is that LE investigators contended that Jason unplugged that camera. Did any of them actually demonstrate how that was possible??? Or was it just opinion?

After looking at the photos of Jason walking down the hallway and the one of the stairwell camera, plus the layout of the hotel, I do not see how he could have gotten to that camera from his room undetected. Somebody help me out here.

Glenn

Where are those pesky pix is a question that should be addressed at the next trial, if there is a next trial....

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Because it is common practice. I do it all the time, and I have been a road-warrior for work. There are lots of reasons to do it. The primary one is that quite often hotels have key cards inside the doors that enable the electricity for the room, and you keep the key in the card holder so you can continue using the heat/air conditioner/charger, like the hotel room that I'm typing this from now. It can become a habit to not completely lock your door and leave your key card in your room. In addition, if for whatever reason you get locked out, you can always go to the front desk to get a new one.

It is only common practice if you travel alot. And perhaps it is not common for everyone, but there are a lot of people that do exactly what he did regularly.

It is a common practice. I've done it and so has my husband and so have many coworkers I've traveled with and stayed down the hall from. I think it is ludicrous that this was even entered into evidence. For some bizarre reason, the prosecution decided that because Jason had an aversion to the lasting odor of cigarettes in his home it equaled to an aversion to smoking a cigar outside therefore it was a lie that he did it. Utter nonsense. The entire trial was a joke. What a travesty of justice.

JMO

 

[citygirl]

I do not think that the defense did a good job in educating the jury on how easily a false identification can be made, The way Gracie's identification was elicited is a classic case.

As for you comment that Gracie remembered him because he went off on her is something that history provides ample rebuttal witnesses. Take the case of a woman who was raped in 1984. She memorized every detail of his face, determined to find him and bring him to justice. Yet she fingered the wrong man. There are many more similar stories. Once a witness has something settled in their mind they can and do become supremely confident that they are remembering things as they really happened, but so many are proven wrong time and again. We do not know how many others have been wrong but the exonerating evidence has never been found.

The woman was mortified that she had fingered the wrong man.

" In 1984 I was a 22-year-old college student with a grade point average of 4.0, and I really wanted to do something with my life. One night someone broke into my apartment, put a knife to my throat and raped me.

During my ordeal, some of my determination took an urgent new direction. I studied every single detail on the rapist's face. I looked at his hairline; I looked for scars, for tattoos, for anything that would help me identify him. When and if I survived the attack, I was going to make sure that he was put in prison and he was going to rot.

When I went to the police department later that day, I worked on a composite sketch to the very best of my ability. I looked through hundreds of noses and eyes and eyebrows and hairlines and nostrils and lips. Several days later, looking at a series of police photos, I identified my attacker. I knew this was the man. I was completely confident. I was sure.

I picked the same man in a lineup. Again, I was sure. I knew it. I had picked the right guy, and he was going to go to jail. If there was the possibility of a death sentence, I wanted him to die. I wanted to flip the switch.

When the case went to trial in 1986, I stood up on the stand, put my hand on the Bible and swore to tell the truth. Based on my testimony, Ronald Junior Cotton was sentenced to prison for life. It was the happiest day of my life because I could begin to put it all behind me.

In 1987, the case was retried because an appellate court had overturned Ronald Cotton's conviction. During a pretrial hearing, I learned that another man had supposedly claimed to be my attacker and was bragging about it in the same prison wing where Ronald Cotton was being held. This man, Bobby Poole, was brought into court, and I was asked, "Ms. Thompson, have you ever seen this man?" I answered: "I have never seen him in my life. I have no idea who
he is."

Ronald Cotton was sentenced again to two life sentences. Ronald Cotton was never going to see light; he was never going to get out; he was never going to hurt another woman; he was never going to rape another woman.

In 1995, 11 years after I had first identified Ronald Cotton, I was asked to provide a blood sample so that DNA tests could be run on evidence from the rape. I agreed because I knew that Ronald Cotton had raped me and DNA was
only going to confirm that. The test would allow me to move on once and for all.

I will never forget the day I learned about the DNA results. I was standing in my kitchen when the detective and the district attorney visited. They were good and decent people who were trying to do their jobs -- as I had done mine, as anyone would try to do the right thing. They told me: "Ronald Cotton didn't rape you. It was Bobby Poole."

Read "I was Certain But I was Wrong" at http://www.truthinjustice.org/positive_id.htm .

I hope that this will give some of you pause to think and rethink.

Glenn

With all due respect it doesn't give me pause to think and rethink. A juror needs to follow the evidence and use COMMON SENSE. One can parse and pick apart every detail. We don't live in a perfect world.
As to the bolded above, I doubt the defense can hold a class on misidentifying suspects in the midst of a court case. It's just not reasonable. Again, in a perfect world maybe? Remember Barry Scheck ? He fiercely argued the case for OJ Simpson, at the same time working for the Innocence Project. Talk about a contradiction!

 

[Madeleine74]

I think it is ludicrous that this was even entered into evidence. For some bizarre reason, the prosecution decided that because Jason had an aversion to the lasting odor of cigarettes in his home it equaled to an aversion to smoking a cigar outside therefore it was a lie that he did it. Utter nonsense.

Yet it was Jason and his defense who introduced this whole cigar excuse during his direct exam and entered it into evidence. Claimed he went outside, through that metal door, at midnight (wearing different clothes than when he checked in an hour before), to smoke a cigar. It was the state's right to impeach. They looked at the weather and conditions at the time of this, discovered it was in the low 30s with wind gusts over 20mph and also had several witnesses who knew Jason's personal feelings about smoking.

 

[JusticeFever]

Thank you. It doesn't address the newspaper thing but confirms the other aspects of the door.

YW....... Here is something else, though. Jason stayed at Hampton Inns before, he knew that his hotel receipt and a newspaper would be delivered to his room sometime during the night.
So, he would still leave his door ajar under those circumstances? One little push or pull on the door or door knob would open it and guess who would be discovered not sleeping in their bed!!

 

[JusticeFever]

Of course the 2nd jury had no trouble ignoring the exculpatory facts. It has been ruled an unfair trial because prejudicial information was presented to the jury that greatly influenced their decision. We don't even know at this point whether there will be another trial. The prosecution may conclude they have no way to convict Young at this point.


It is a reach to pretend the jury was impartial when an appellate court has already decided otherwise.

JMO

Good to see you, My Belle...

A plea deal may look good to all parties at this point. JMO

 

[JusticeFever]

Ripping a witness to shreds is a figure of speech that applies to their testimony not to the witness. In a trial where a man is fighting for his life and freedom, a defense attorney has a duty to provide him the best defense possible and that includes attacking the testimony of an admitted [modsnip] memory impaired witness. The prosecution put Gracie in that position, not the defense.

The appellate decision specifically mentions the fact that the defense was not aware of the extent of her mental disability until before the second trial. To put Gracie into the position as a key witness was cruel and may have humiliated her, imo.

After the first trial concluded, Defendant’s counsel learned that Ms. Calhoun had received disability benefits since she was a child. Ms. Calhoun stated that when
she was six-years-old, she was hit by a truck. This accident caused her brain to be dislodged from her skull and to fall onto the street. Doctors reinsert ed her brain and Ms. Calhoun stated that she has had memory problems her entire life as a result of the accident.

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

Yes, but it may be better to just say a more aggressive line of questioning is needed when GB takes the stand again..than to want to tear her apart or attack her.
I still think the defense was limited on some of the things that could be approached with her.

JMO

Thanks for the link!!! :wink:

 

[citygirl]

This is the testimony from Steve Hale, he is a PI, he worked for the WCSO for 26 years, and retired as a Det. Lieutenant.....

This is the video to show his findings from the Hampton Inn,(doors, etc) very very very impressive. IMO It is only 36.54..and it has discs full of photos of what he saw and did.

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/10791413/

Very impressive to some. Elementary to me not to mention a real yawner. Just sayin' and with all due respect. Did they ever get the video figured out?

 

[citygirl]

Yet it was Jason and his defense who introduced this whole cigar excuse during his direct exam and entered it into evidence. Claimed he went outside, through that metal door, at midnight (wearing different clothes than when he checked in an hour before), to smoke a cigar. It was the state's right to impeach. They looked at the weather and conditions at the time of this, discovered it was in the low 30s with wind gusts over 20mph and also had several witnesses who knew Jason's personal feelings about smoking.

So true. What a hoot. Not only that , he says he went out earlier to retrieve his computer charger. Did he assume they had that on video, maybe? No video exists. None for the breakfast area either. Where the heck was he?

 

[JusticeFever]

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

Omg, Belle, thanks for posting this part, I was trying to find this earlier........

Page 15

"After the first trial concluded, defendant's counsel learned that Mrs. Calhoun had received
disability payments since she was a child. Mrs. Calhoun stated that when she was 6 years
old, she was hit by a truck. This accident caused her brain to be dislodged from her skull
and to fall into the street.
Doctors reinserted her brain and Mrs. Calhoun stated she had memory problems her entire
life as a result of the accident."

Well, that clears that up, and, this is now an official part of the appellate brief.
Even though it had nothing to do with the ruling of a new trial, it is good to have this on
record.

 

[JusticeFever]

Where are those pesky pix is a question that should be addressed at the next trial, if there is a next trial....

JMO

There had to be photos of JY that am somewhere in the hotel, after he checked out of his room. Maybe the breakfast area didn't have cameras, but the hallways and exits sure all did!!

 

[MyBelle]

Good to see you, My Belle...

A plea deal may look good to all parties at this point. JMO

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. If I was in Jason's shoes, no way would I accept a plea deal. I firmly believe the man is innocent and that's why they resorted to ridiculous "evidence" such as missing clothes they waited years to even look for and a witness who testified her brain was on a sidewalk but reinserted.....The investigators did DNA testing on a landscape rock. Seriously.

Plenty of evidence somebody else was at the crime scene. Multiple witnesses who saw activity at the home at a time it was proved Jason was in another state.

The travesty of justice to Michelle, Rylan and Cassidy has been profound.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

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

Omg, Belle, thanks for posting this part, I was trying to find this earlier........

Page 15

"After the first trial concluded, defendant's counsel learned that Mrs. Calhoun had received
disability payments since she was a child. Mrs. Calhoun stated that when she was 6 years
old, she was hit by a truck. This accident caused her brain to be dislodged from her skull
and to fall into the street.
Doctors reinserted her brain and Mrs. Calhoun stated she had memory problems her entire
life as a result of the accident."

Well, that clears that up, and, this is now an official part of the appellate brief.
Even though it had nothing to do with the ruling of a new trial, it is good to have this on
record.

Actually it was included in their opinion so I believe it has something to do with their opinion.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Yes, but it may be better to just say a more aggressive line of questioning is needed when GB takes the stand again..than to want to tear her apart or attack her.
I still think the defense was limited on some of the things that could be approached with her.

JMO

Thanks for the link!!! :wink:

We'll see if the prosecution decides to use her as a witness next trial....if there is one. The Young and Cooper trials had the worst prosecution teams of any trial I've ever watched. Both of them rank right up there with the Ryan Ferguson debacle. Taxpayers should demand the new prosecutor totally cleans house.

JMO

 

[JusticeFever]

Actually it was included in their opinion so I believe it has something to do with their opinion.

JMO

It was based on something the witness testified to.