Jason Young to get new trial #2

[citygirl]

Trial 1: JY takes the stand, result is hung jury with most voting for acquittal.
Trial 2: JY doesn't take the stand, guilty verdict, overturned.

My top of mind question: will he take the stand on the third trial?

NO way. It won't happen, IMO.
I could be wrong though.
Stay tuned.

 

[oenophile]

I'm sorry. He may have an alibi because he wasn't home. To me it ends there.

He has an alibi because he was far away from home. That is a pretty big hurdle to overcome. You can't just wish it away or ignore it.

 

[JusticeFever]

Trial 1: JY takes the stand, result is hung jury with most voting for acquittal.
Trial 2: JY doesn't take the stand, guilty verdict, overturned.

My top of mind question: will he take the stand on the third trial?

Would the state really want to do a Trial 3 is more likely the question? There is so much involved and so many things to consider.

 

[oenophile]

NO way. It won't happen, IMO.
I could be wrong though.
Stay tuned.

Why not?

 

[minor4th]

Trial 1: JY takes the stand, result is hung jury with most voting for acquittal.
Trial 2: JY doesn't take the stand, guilty verdict, overturned.

My top of mind question: will he take the stand on the third trial?

My guess - no! The only reason he took the stand in the first trial was because he had the element of surprise. He's lost that now and can't afford to contradict himself

 

[minor4th]

He has an alibi because he was far away from home. That is a pretty big hurdle to overcome. You can't just wish it away or ignore it.

I don't even know if that can be considered a real alibi since he had plenty of time to drive back home and murder Michelle

 

[citygirl]

He has an alibi because he was far away from home. That is a pretty big hurdle to overcome. You can't just wish it away or ignore it.

I'm not ignoring nor wishing it away. Based on the timeline and evidence I have seen is alibi is weak, IMO.

 

[oenophile]

Would the state really want to do a Trial 3 is more likely the question? There is so much involved and so many things to consider.

The state is going to either offer a plea or take it to trial, or both. They have too much ego invested in it.

(By the way, for those that are saying that the state will offer a plea to either Peterson, Young or Cooper, I would argue that they already have to all of them, probably several times over. I cannot imagine that the state would not offer to plea bargain to avoid a trial. The question is really how aggressive they get with the bargain.)

 

[JusticeFever]

Another unrelated question, and this is more generic:

Would a defense attorney recommend to a client to take a plea on a murder charge if they believed their client was innocent?

No idea, I guess it would depend on the deal and what they thought their chances were.
You have to consider the families, how they will hold up, can they go through another trial? The witnesses? could they go into a Round 3? It's been a long time now.

 

[minor4th]

Another unrelated question, and this is more generic:

Would a defense attorney recommend to a client to take a plea on a murder charge if they believed their client was innocent?

Maybe, depends on he deal that's offered. Through two trials there's been enough evidence to convice most jurors he's guilty, so at this point a defense attorney would not be confident of an acquittal.

 

[citygirl]

Why not?

Because they already took the chance and it came back to haunt him.
Do you really think they would go there again? He would need to tailor his testimony accordingly. Ain't gonna happen, IMO.

 

[minor4th]

I read in an older article that there was DNA evidence that linked Jason to the crime scene - something about his DNA being mixed with her blood. Did anything ever come of that?

 

[oenophile]

I'm not ignoring nor wishing it away. Based on the timeline and evidence I have seen is alibi is weak, IMO.

Disagree entirely. The timeline and the evidence for the alibi is incredibly strong, the argument against it is weak. It all comes down to one witness that lacks credibility (to an extreme) and a random security camera that was unplugged. That is it. Nothing else. How can anyone possibly say that the alibi is weak?

 

[oenophile]

Because they already took the chance and it came back to haunt him.
Do you really think they would go there again? He would need to tailor his testimony accordingly. Ain't gonna happen, IMO.

What I'm saying is that the time he testified, it helped him. The time he didn't, it harmed him.

Not saying that it will happen, just really curious as to the reasoning why or why not.

 

[JusticeFever]

I read in an older article that there was DNA evidence that linked Jason to the crime scene - something about his DNA being mixed with her blood. Did anything ever come of that?

Umm,, no.!!! Nothing even close.!

 

[minor4th]

Umm,, no.!!! Nothing even close.!

That's what I thought. Do you know why that was reported?

 

[oenophile]

Maybe, depends on he deal that's offered. Through two trials there's been enough evidence to convict most jurors he's guilty, so at this point a defense attorney would not be confident of an acquittal.

I think that is a mischaracterization. The first trial, the majority of jurors were not guilty. The second was determined to be an unfair trial (you can always convince 100% of jurors to vote guilty if the trial is unfair). Thus, I would argue that most jurors felt he was not guilty in a fair trial. Wouldn't that make an attorney confident of an eventual acquittal (despite the fact that the deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution in jury trials)?

 

[JusticeFever]

What I'm saying is that the time he testified, it helped him. The time he didn't, it harmed him.

Not saying that it will happen, just really curious as to the reasoning why or why not.

In Trial 2, the state was able to pick out any discrepancies in his testimony. If there is a Trial 3, I would say he better get on the stand and clear any of those misunderstandings up.

 

[JusticeFever]

That's what I thought. Do you know why that was reported?

I know they said that blood was found in his SUV in order to obtain a search warrant, but that was not true. These cases fortunately or unfortunately sometimes, get so much attention and so many rumors posted as fact, and so much stuff wrong. I know I have had to correct a lot of mis-information, but, then again, we are going back 8 years, it's a case from 2006.

 

[JusticeFever]

I think that is a mischaracterization. The first trial, the majority of jurors were not guilty. The second was determined to be an unfair trial (you can always convince 100% of jurors to vote guilty if the trial is unfair). Thus, I would argue that most jurors felt he was not guilty in a fair trial. Wouldn't that make an attorney confident of an eventual acquittal (despite the fact that the deck is stacked in favor of the prosecution in jury trials)?

You just don't know about juries though. Look at Raven Abaroa, the jurors voted 11-1 Guilty, and the state decided not to retry and anyone could almost guarantee they would have been certain to get an all Guilty Verdict the 2nd time. But,they chose not to, and with time served , Raven will be free as a bird, which really pisses me off, because I have never seen someone so guilty. The 911 call would have been all I needed to vote Guilty.