State vs. Jason Lynn Young 02-29-12

[~n/t~]

I keep waiting for those 12 HP to come flying in sometime. LOL Few friends want to stick around with a suspect in a homicide case.

That's true. I'm sure his life changed drastically after being arrested. It would be a good poll question.

If a friend is charged with murder, do you remain friends or :hills:

 

[fredwomble]

Quick question from yesterday's thread. I thought that the co-worker and SS both testified to the fact that MY said her seatbelt was off in the crash. Am I wrong?

I read that Shelly stated this earlier, and I wrote my post as such last night. Later, someone indicated it was her coworker from Progress Energy who reported Michelle's version of being unbuckled. Ergo, I may be incorrect in stating Shelly Schaad testified to this. Someone testified that Michelle told them she was unbuckled. Also, it was reported that Michelle did not speak to the trooper, only Jason did.

In the context of the accident at that very moment it did not appear suspicious. Now we know that the life insurance had been boosted to $1 million, that Cassidy was purposely left behind for a short trip to get coffee. We know that weeks before her murder, Michelle's life insurance was boosted again, and her being dead was worth up to $4 million.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[cody100]

Do you guys really think the highly decorated Highway Patrol Officer would distort his findings for anyone? Why did the PT not call him in first?

 

[CGW]

Good Morning and Happy Leap Day! I'm thinking JY will NOT take the stand.....way too risky now that the PT has his previous testimony to grill him on. IMO, the DT got all they needed from JY's testimony from trial #1 being admitted into evidence and that was statements from JY that he did not kill his wife, he loved his wife, and lots of "No Sirs" and "Yes Ma'ams" with that fake charming personality. They have NOTHING to gain by putting him back on the stand. I think the DT is banking on CB's testimony....IMO it's all they have.

 

[CGW]

I read that Shelly stated this earlier, and I wrote my post as such last night. Later, someone indicated it was her coworker from Progress Energy who reported Michelle's version of being unbuckled. Ergo, I may be incorrect in stating Shelly Schaad testified to this. Someone testified that Michelle told them she was unbuckled. Also, it was reported that Michelle did not speak to the trooper, only Jason did.

In the context of the accident at that very moment it did not appear suspicious. Now we know that the life insurance had been boosted to $1 million, that Cassidy was purposely left behind for a short trip to get coffee. We know that weeks before her murder, Michelle's life insurance was boosted again, and her being dead was worth up to $4 million.

Draw your own conclusions.

I agree 100% with you. IMO, the officer wouldn't have been in on all that info. On it's face it looked like an accident. I don't fault the officer here. Had those details been offered to the officer then maybe he would have dug deeper. My belief is Jason wrecked intentionally knowing he was buckled in and Michelle wasn't. JY would probably be okay in the accident and in his mind maybe MY wouldn't be. I often wondered if the river was as much a part of the plan as the accident. If JY would have planned to drive into the river, he would be mentally prepared to escape and MY would be caught off guard and may drown. I actually think winding up in the river was a big part of it. JMO.

 

[happy2binNC]

Put on your juror hats: How does it influence you as a juror if JLY doesn't take the stand, since you already know he testified last time? Does it make him appear he's hiding? Make him appear more confident? Does it not affect your opinion either way?

 

[ohiogirl]

Good question. I would have to think he doesn't want to appear to go against prior testimony. That is just my own feeling, but as a juror, it would be hard to overlook. jmo

 

[~n/t~]

Put on your juror hats: How does it influence you as a juror if JLY doesn't take the stand, since you already know he took the stand last time? Does it make him appear he's hiding? Make him appear confident? Does it not affect your opinion either way?

As a juror knowing he took the stand the first time, I'd expect him to take the stand again. Would it effect my verdict? Probably not after reviewing all the evidence and testimony.

 

[jrb0124]

Put on your juror hats: How does it influence you as a juror if JLY doesn't take the stand, since you already know he testified last time? Does it make him appear he's hiding? Make him appear more confident? Does it not affect your opinion either way?

Highly doubt he takes the stand, and by keeping him off the stand the DT implies that the State has done nothing to significantly impeach his testimony from last year - so why tell the story again?

If they put him on to address new evidence/testimony they are admitting that its harmful enough to their case that the defendant has to clear it up. To me, it seems the DT itself w/o JY has already addressed the "new" issues/testimony offered by the PT except for one.

 

[cody100]

I don't think you can draw any conclusions from the car accident other than the trooper, who has years of experience, ruled it an accident. Of course, tales can be spun all day to make this look suspicious, but I find more suspicious is that the State failed to call the trooper and highly decorated officer to give his professional opinion and relied on non-professional friends. MOO

 

[dunlurken]

I would like him to take the stand again, personally. But I don't really see the point unless prosecution can catch him in a lie. And I'm assuming (which you never should do) that defense will have a chance at him as well. So, all in all, it's rather moot in mind.

I can tell you this much. I fully understand why the first trial came back as a hung jury.

 

[pjcitizen]

Regarding the car accident and whether MY was wearing a seat belt-

The officer only knew what JLY told him. It's not a situation of, well if SS and/or the co-worker are being honest, then the officer is lying. It's a situation of, well if SS and/or the co-worker are being honest, then JASON lied to the officer. In this case I find that IF SS and/or the co-worker would be willing to commit perjury, they would find something a lot more incriminating and damning to do it over.

I'm not arguing whether this was an accident. It could have been an accident even if she weren't wearing a seatbelt.

MOO

 

[luckyme]

Beth Karas says jury should have case by friday! I guess that points tos jason not taking the stand.

 

[AmarilloByAM]

I cannot get this out of my mind ... CY as a young adult finding out what happened to her mother and asking JY, "Dad, why did you never talk to LE? Why did you never find out who did this to my Mom? Why did you never find out who was there that could have hurt me too? Dad, why did you not fight for custody of me? Didn't you want me to live with you?"

Horrible.

 

[CeeKer]

Put on your juror hats: How does it influence you as a juror if JLY doesn't take the stand, since you already know he testified last time? Does it make him appear he's hiding? Make him appear more confident? Does it not affect your opinion either way?

As a juror I would try my best not to let it influence me and deliberate within the perimeters of the judges instructions. As a random person I would like to see him testify.

Personally, I do think it makes you look less guilty (in general) if you can get on the stand and come off well. I do realize though that the better and more experienced liar/manipulator you are the better you'll look on the stand and it's never advised and often ends up badly. But I'm being honest and human nature what it is, I want to hear him and judge for myself.

I think it's possible that if he doesn't testify some could jurors might wonder if he's "running scared" and wonder if the PT has more ammunition to impeach him this time since he didn't hesitate to testify before and infer there is a reason.

 

[cody100]

Regarding the car accident and whether MY was wearing a seat belt-

The officer only knew what JLY told him. It's not a situation of, well if SS and/or the co-worker are being honest, then the officer is lying. It's a situation of, well if SS and/or the co-worker are being honest, then JASON lied to the officer. In this case I find that IF SS and/or the co-worker would be willing to commit perjury, they would find something a lot more incriminating and damning to do it over.

I'm not arguing whether this was an accident. It could have been an accident even if she weren't wearing a seatbelt.

MOO

Thanks for clarifying that this was an accident. We just do not know whether she was wearing a seatbelt or not. Don't think they can prove that either way. MOO

 

[Wolfpack]

Put on your juror hats: How does it influence you as a juror if JLY doesn't take the stand, since you already know he testified last time? Does it make him appear he's hiding? Make him appear more confident? Does it not affect your opinion either way?

I don't think it would affect me at this point. We've already heard him testify, in a sense. The jury is also given an instruction that they cannot use the defendant's refusal to testify for or against him. Subconsciously, it may have an effect on some, but he's already paid his dues in my mind.

 

[cody100]

While it would be nice to hear him testify, I would personally not hold it against him if he did not.

 

[BrownRice]

I don't recall anybody discussing this yesterday during PY's testimony.....The fact she said JY had 2 wedding bands (a dress one and a regular one). I've heard of women (wealthy, rich women with huge diamonds) doing that, but not men. And JY was a white collar worker, so it's not like he had to worry about doing construction work and damaging the ring. I thought that was a bit odd.

 

[CeeKer]

I just want to thank the Mods again for everything they do!

It has been a pleasure posting! Everyone has great insights on both sides (and on top) of the fence!