Breaking News/State files Brief Today in Young Case.10/20/14

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I hope JY is overcome with memories as he sits in in cell this Easter day. Memories of his wife, memories of his baby son, memories of his daughter......and most all memories that because of his brutal, merciless acts, he will remain where he is forever!
 
Snoods said:
If anyone is interested Dateline is running their show about the case "Silent Witness" at 8 CT tonight on NBC.
Click to expand...

Thanks, it was a repeat from 2012, however, Beth Karras was on for updates in the case. Beth said it was wrong for the civil judgement ruling to come in declaring Jason a murderer in front of the Jury. And, that even though the Judge said to disregard or not take into consideration those statements, Beth said once it was out there, it would be hard to not think about it.

Beth said that was the reason Jason was awarded a new trial, and she also pointed out the civil trial and criminal trial involved the same Judge.

http://www.nbcnews.com/video/dateline/46912041#46912041

This is the link to the first airing called "Silent Witness"
 
The Judge for the wrongful death proceeding was Osmond Smith....not Donald Stephens
 
I will look it up more thoroughly, but I did a quick search and found this:

https://justiceforjasonyoung.wordpress.com/

What exactly did the jury hear?

That Jason didn’t respond to the wrongful death complaint and that failure to respond can result in a judgement issued by the court against the defendant.
That Judge Stephens signed the Judgement when he could have deferred it pending the criminal proceedings.
That the court awarded Linda Fisher $15 Million.
That Detective Spivey submitted an affidavit as part of the court records in the civil case stating that Jason Young murdered Michele.
That the slayer statute enabled the court to award the insurance money to the Fishers through a default judgement.
to award the insurance money to the Fishers through a default judgement.
 
Here you go, it was Judge Stephens who made the ruling in the civil trial. 12/10/08

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=6427041

"Jason Lynn Young willfully and unlawfully killed Michelle Marie Fisher Young," Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens wrote in his ruling. He also barred Jason Young, 34, from receiving any life insurance money or assets from his wife's estate.

"More than two years after Michelle Young was found bludgeoned to death, her young daughter in bed nearby, her relatives have received a measure of justice -- though not the kind they were ultimately hoping for.
A North Carolina civil court judge has ruled that Michelle Young's husband, Jason Young, killed the 29-year-old mother in November 2006, even though no criminal charges have yet been filed in the slaying.
"Jason Lynn Young willfully and unlawfully killed Michelle Marie Fisher Young," Wake County Superior Court Judge Donald Stephens wrote in his ruling. He also barred Jason Young, 34, from receiving any life insurance money or assets from his wife's estate.
Jason Young, who declined to comment for this story, is still free and living in North Carolina with his young daughter.
The wrongful death lawsuit against him was brought by his wife's mother, Linda Fisher, in October, shortly before the two-year statute of limitations on such suits was to run out.
When Jason Young didn't respond to the civil suit, the judge granted a motion for a default judgment in Fisher's favor.
Paul Michaels, Fisher's lawyer in Raleigh, said they are hoping the civil court ruling will spur the criminal probe of the case. Jason Young has not been named as a suspect.
Something had to be done," Michaels told ABCNews.com. "The main reason this was done was Linda Fisher believed Jason killed Michelle."
At least one police investigator agrees.
Included as evidence in Fisher's lawsuit was an affidavit from Wake County Sheriff's Office criminal investigator R. C. Spivey III, a lead investigator in the case.
Spivey wrote in the affidavit: "I am familiar with other items of fact developed during this investigation that have not been placed in the public record to support a search warrant and, in my opinion, this evidence … indicates that Jason Young was the perpetrator."
When asked why no charges had been filed against Jason Young despite a signed affidavit from the department's investigator naming him as the likely killer, Wake County Sheriff's Office public information director Phyllis Stephens had no comment.
"It's a continuing investigation for us," she said.
Wake County Assistant District Attorney Howard Cummings said that explaining why Jason Young has not been charged would require revealing evidence that he's not allowed to comment on.
Cummings said Stephens' ruling would not further his office's investigation into Jason Young because it was based largely on police statements, which the District Attorney's Office has already reviewed. He also declined to comment on when or whether charges in Michelle Young's murder would be forthcoming"
___________________________________________________________________________________________
Also , as most of us know, Judge Stephens issued many, if not all, of the search warrants, including the very first one.
So, yes, he was very much involved with the investigation and the civil and criminal hearings.
 
LOL, anyone that followed the case knows the chain of events with the civil matters.

Civil trial? There was no trial as you claim. It was a default judgement signed by the chief judge Stephens. Judge Smith awarded the judgement award ----the only civil proceeding in open court.
 
You can call it a trial or a hearing, whatever you want, :P, but evidence was presented and submitted and based on that Jason was found responsible for Michelle's death. It was a civil suit, its all in the post above.

Wait, I thought the Fishers and Spivey testified as well, yep, they did!

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4745442/

Spivey said that, based on the evidence he's collected in the case over the last 23 months, he believes Jason Young planned his wife's slaying. The evidence includes computer searches on Jason Young's computer for "head trauma" and "the anatomy for the rear part of the skull," Spivey said.

"That ties in with the nature of her death," he said. "In my opinion, (her death) was premeditated."

Fisher testified Monday that her daughter was an intelligent woman and caring mother.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/4745442/#A6WYwfh7G62EzSvd.99
 
LOL...again
Thanks for the links that show the only Civil proceeding with testimony involved Judge Smith , NOT Stephens.

"the civil trial and criminal trial involved the same Judge"
 
Just the Fax said:
LOL...again
Thanks for the links that show the only Civil proceeding with testimony involved Judge Smith , NOT Stephens.

"the civil trial and criminal trial involved the same Judge"
Click to expand...


You are welcome, by signing off on the ruling, Judge Stephens was very much involved.
 
Scanning the briefs, here seem to be the main issues:

1. Were the prior civil proceedings introduced to prove a fact alleged or admitted in those proceedings (NCGS 1-149)?

2. If they were not, did the trial court err in overruling the 403 objection that the undue prejudice of the evidence outweighed the probative value?

3. What is the correct standard of review – de novo or only for abuse of discretion by the trial court?

On question 1, I think the defense makes pretty good arguments on the equity of the matter (and obviously so since they convinced the entire court of appeals panel), while the prosecution points to having covered the legal bases (limiting instruction by judge, etc.). The notion is whether the evidence goes to show that JY’s failure to dispute the accusations is itself evidence that the story he told in Trial 1 is not to be believed, or as the defense says the evidence can only be to suggest proof of his guilt by the accusations as JY’s failure to respond could be for any reason and does not speak at all to the testimony he gave in Trial 1. The Supreme Court has to consider these points and speak to them I think (unless they punt on a procedural point which seems doubtful). No doubt forum members would see this in light of how they already judge the case. In my opinion, the civil judgment is less of an impeachment toward telling a story later (as it is only to dodge a potential money judgment) than the custody situation where you essentially lose your child (what more could motivate you to speak up) – again just IMO.

On question 2, if it makes it that far, the court should consider whether the trial court, in an abuse of discretion, misjudged the evidence such that the undue prejudice outweighed the probative value. Did the essentially bombshell nature of the admitted by default allegations, in speaking to JY’s guilt, outweigh the stated (but not agreed by defense) appropriate purpose of impeaching the Trial 1 testimony. IMO, dicey. The trial court certainly issued limiting instructions and stated plainly that the allegations of the civil suit were not to be considered true. Nevertheless, perhaps the state would not be in the pickle they are in if they had not gone into such detail on the allegations and the supporting evidence presented with the civil complaint.

On question 3, I’m not sure it matters as the standard cited probably won’t control the court deciding the matter in the way it thinks appropriate given the gravity of the situation.

I certainly think JY is guilty as can be. I do believe he gave up on the civil matters to preserve the advantage of remaining unquestioned on his behavior. But, even from that perspective the defense appeal seems to have a lot of merit, and I’m not surprised at the court of appeals decision. However, the supreme court decision to take on the appeal when it didn’t have to suggests it has an interest in the legal points and odds are on a reversal rather than an affirm, but not so substantially that I’d want to bet on it.
 
Hi gritguy!

So nice to see you here. Thank you for summarizing the legal issues and appreciate your lawerly expertise.

There was another piece of evidence also brought out during trial #2 testimony, and that was JY's failure to collect on $4M worth of life insurance he would have absolutely gotten, but it would have required him to talk, as sitting for an interview with the insurance co was part of the process, due to his wife dying via homicide.

Remember he told 2 people (his own mother and Linda Fisher) he was worried about losing his house and "taking a hit on the house," the same day he learned his wife was dead. As a newly single father raising a young child and concerned about losing his own home, who would ever turn away a $4M life insurance payout, and one that took some effort to arrange in the first place?

He ultimately faced 3 consequences in refusing to talk to anyone at any point:

- Unable to collect a guaranteed $4M life insurance payout.
- Have a wrongful death judgement imposed and be declared responsible under the slayer statute, with significant financial loss assured as the outcome, for refusing to even respond to the paperwork, which he could have done without any lawyer, according to testimony by Lorin Freeman. He claimed he couldn't afford to defend himself, but he would have had the $4M insurance payout had he bothered to reach out to the insurance company.
- Willingly giving up primary custody of his toddler daughter in exchange for never being deposed and not ever taking a psychological examination.

That's a whole lot of giving up just to avoid saying, "I was in my hotel room all night far, far away, I swear! I know nuttin' about nuttin.'"

{But yes, I understand the SC is not going to concern themselves with that, as they will only look at the issues and arguments in the brief.}
 
I agree. Even BC talked to try to save custody. I understand some believe JY is innocent and/or the state bungled the case. However, I believe 100% he is guilty, and all his actions before and after the crime are consistent with that, IMO.

To me, it is probative that JY chose to face serious non-criminal consequences in favor of keeping silent viewed in light of his story in Trial 1. You line it out very logically - starting with foregoing the insurance payout, he kept silent because he realized he had gotten far closer to being nailed than he planned and did not want to tip over the line. I do understand though the prejudicial effect of reading the civil allegations and especially the supporting affidavits.

Of course it's normal to get evidence in under a rule for one purpose with the clear hope and desire the jury perceives it in a way you want for other purposes. Most evidence though does not have an individual statute addressing it. That's why in retrospect I think the state would have been better off laying off talking about the supporting evidence to the complaint, etc., and focusing on the point you make - which is whether his decisions to withhold the tale of innocence to his immediate detriment shed light on the believability of the story told so much later.

Again having only surfed the arguments in brief I'd say it comes down to the SC's opinion of the effectiveness of the limiting instructions the judge gave and the extent to which discussion was allowed on the details of the allegations and proof so supporting. Whether the SC believes the evidence had a legitimate purpose other than to convince the jury that the facts have basically already been proved and whether such purpose outweighs the jury possibly deciding that if other judges had looked at the underlying facts and they had so much support then heck the jury should believe it too.

And, they may take this opportunity to create a clearer rule on such evidence, a "test" the trial judge should articulate when evaluating such evidence, though I think the statute and Rule 403 should satisfy most cases.

It would be an interesting case to hear the arguments on, at least from a law geek perspective.
 
:bump:

hello.......just a reminder since this is happening Tuesday :seeya:
-------------------

The appeals court found that Jason Young's presumption of innocence was "irreparably diminished," in part, by prosecutors' evidence about a wrongful death lawsuit and a default judgment declaring Young the killer because he never responded to the lawsuit.

The state Supreme Court will hear the case May 19.

Jason Young, meanwhile, remains incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution in Alexander County.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/nc-supreme-court-to-hear-jason-young-case/14534056/#TkJfD0JgeBsIpyHC.99
 
Queen Bee said:
:bump:

hello.......just a reminder since this is happening Tuesday :seeya:
-------------------

The appeals court found that Jason Young's presumption of innocence was "irreparably diminished," in part, by prosecutors' evidence about a wrongful death lawsuit and a default judgment declaring Young the killer because he never responded to the lawsuit.

The state Supreme Court will hear the case May 19.

Jason Young, meanwhile, remains incarcerated at Alexander Correctional Institution in Alexander County.

Read more at http://www.wral.com/nc-supreme-court-to-hear-jason-young-case/14534056/#TkJfD0JgeBsIpyHC.99
Click to expand...
:bump:

sorry to quote myself........just a reminder

i believe it's 9:30 in the morning.......:seeya:
 
now live at above link

hearing has begun..................
 
According to testimony from Lorrin Freeman during trial #2, it did not cost a lot to respond to a wrongful death suit... it merely required the filing of a letter, no lawyer needed at that point. What slayer did was ignore the paperwork altogether. Plus he had the opportunity to get $4M from the insurance over a year before that wrongful death suit was filed... he didn't even try. He gave thousands of $ to his mother & sister (I'm remembering something like $12K). There was money to defend and certainly at the very least he could afford the cost of a postage stamp to respond back, which is all he needed to do at that point (according to L. Freeman).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 181 more.
Total: 414 (members: 182, guests: 232)

Online statistics

Members online
182
Guests online
232
Total visitors
414
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,881
Messages
18,247,041
Members
234,479
Latest member
stuntinlikemymamma7
Back
Top