There was just breaking news on WRAL about Judge Stephens asking SBI to look into possible Juror misconduct. What does this mean if they find misconduct? Does he get another trial?
RALEIGH, N.C. — The judge presiding over the murder trial of Jason Young has ordered the State Bureau of Investigation to look into possible misconduct involving a juror who might have talked about the case during deliberations.
<modsnip>
Reporter: Tara Lynn
Here's the short clip of him saying it:
http://www.wral.com/news/local/video/5743505/#/vid5743505
I saw the whole episode on the web somewhere but I can't find it now.
There was just breaking news on WRAL about Judge Stephens asking SBI to look into possible Juror misconduct. What does this mean if they find misconduct? Does he get another trial?
http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_decision_misconduct.asp
- If, as is most often true, the misconduct is not discovered until after the verdict has been rendered, then two strong legal policies tend to restrain efforts to rectify the misconduct:
- The policy that jury deliberations are secret, and only limited inquiry is permitted concerning what went on in the jury room.
- The policy that once a verdict has been rendered, it is presumed to be a valid final judgment for reasons of judicial economy and repose for the litigants.
- Thus, it is often an uphill battle for a losing litigant to even be permitted to offer evidence of jury misconduct, let alone to be granted a new trial on the basis of it. Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) shows the difficulty of presenting evidence to impeach the jury verdict (and many states have similar laws):
(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment. Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith, except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor may a juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received for these purposes.
SBI probe into possible juror misconduct - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
I started a thread for this discussion
I also heard this on TV this morning.Foreperson...
Elected FP, we went into room & we had 4 people who volunteered and did a secret ballot.
Extra pressure? I volunteered, I was familiar & comfortable doing it - i was up to the task.
Delib process...
Day 1; took first vote realized we were split down the middle, we started getting our emotions up from having them all bottle up
halfway through the day we started getting structure, how we wanted to proceed, breaking things down
6/6 or 7/5 friday - 7 in favor of guilt end of day friday vs. 5 undecided - no one was in NG column friday afternoon. No one was firmly in the NG for very long, maybe 1 or 2 initially but they moved to undecided pretty quickly
Monday who is on the fence and really talk about their reservations so we could get them off the fence one way or the other - what are your questions, the things that are gnawing at you - lists all over walls, dry erase boards, we read through the law - what it meant, 1st degree, 2nd degree - working in concert -
9/3 10/2 11/1 finally got to unanimous 12/12 then after lunch asked JS for 20 minutes to pray over it and mull over it individually to make sure were all fine with our verdict - took a couple more votes after the break and everyone was sure in their verdict.
It was really good to finally talk to the 11 other jurors to get my questions asked, i was tipping to G by the end of the day friday - hc statement about the puzzle really stuck with me the analogy made sense you don't need all the pieces to see the big picture another juror said look at all these coincidences and the CE, you don't need every piece.
One piece of evidence stuck out to her - the baby, Cassidy, the fact that someone would take that much time to clean up the baby after committing a brutal crime like that just didn't point to that many people - if it was random who would come in there and do that. That was my feeling. Did not take into account what the DC worker said. The evidence said Cass was cleaned up PERIOD. It was based on the fact that child was clean and someone did it - in my mind the only person to have the compassion & fore thought to do that was Jason. JY cared more about that baby - i think he underestimated this was his plan, he didn't account for what could go wrong IMO. He didn't know what to do when that child got around her mother, he didn't know what to do - he didn't know what the outcome was going to be.
Speaking to LE - I can understand, there's a lot of feeling about LE about how they hone in on stuff - i very much agree with they probably honed in on him - if i had committed a crime, if i didn't like the person i committed the crime against, i'm going to make it that i'm not involve din any of this . if jy didn't kill his wife, he should have presented everything they asked for. he should have presented the shirt, the shoes - he didn't he couldn't. i understand theres no fps or dna from jy, but there isn't from anyone else either.
testify - well after seeing the pt evidence, im not sure him testifying would have helped him. he would have had to fill in a lot of holes from his first testimony - damned if you do - damned if you don't. Cassidy was cleaned up! he couldn't produce a shirt or shoes - even if the shoes were given away you couldn't produce the shirt - it just didn't make any sense!
People who aren't serious about JY get off of it! It's a serious responsibility. It's a very, very important part of our system and shouldn't be taken lightly.
sorry for any typos!
CeeKer! Can you transcribe as best you can for those of us who might be looking in from werk? :innocent: :blowkiss:
Goodness, will this nightmare ever end?!
It would be near impossible to commit suicide in your first few weeks at Central. Suicide watch is mandatory for everyone who comes in, and is part of processing. Sometimes it's as many as 6-8 weeks before they get a cell of their own and clothing of their own, and out of the in between business.
There's no such thing as "forever and ever in a cage" here, as rehabilitation and hope are factors in criminal justice. I don't really understand the concept behind permanently imprisoning people. However, given that forever and ever in a cage is what people like Cooper and Young are facing, I personally don't understand why they bother staying alive.
I am sorry that I do not have these answers. I only know about the trip I posted about. MM had moved to Myrtle Beach then the sisters took their memorial trip there and MM found out about it and coincidentally showed up to where they were and tried to make nice like nothing ever happened. It really disturbed the sisters.