Jason Young to get new trial #4

[citygirl]

If there is a Trial 3, it is very probable that some of Gracie's testimony will be used from the other 2 trials and it is not going to be easy for the state to correct some of the things she messed up on, like the time she came to work, whether the gas pumps were turned off before she got there, did she turn them off, did the store have cameras that didn't work, or no cameras at all, and how the regular customer later turned into a newspaper person. Gracie's memory would not get better over time, loss of memory would mean it would get worse, much worse.

I'm sure Gracie's testimony will be used again........as will others from the first 2 trials.

Ahhh...something to remember that always brings a smile. JY's testimony will be used again by DA I'm sure, testimony he is locked into and can never, ever change.

As my attorney/judge relatives have stated...."he is surely scr*wed now" As stated, they think him guilty as hell and think the appeal technicality will get him absolutely nowhere.

I agree. How many of the witnesses will remember this far out? Remember exactly every detail of their testimony? Those people have lives. Lives outside of this case. Lives that aren't dictated by this case. I'm sure each side will prepare them for testimony. Refresh their memory with their prior testimony. The witnesses that the defense produced were relatively weak. One ended up testifying for the prosecution in the second round. Will they bring the same people forward if there is a third trial? Perhaps they will put Dr. Godwin on the stand this time? I wonder?
As you say, JY's testimony is THE MOST IMPORTANT. He is locked in and his life depends on it. He has a life but he is living behind bars. Other's lives have moved on. His daughter's thankfully. Hopefully his SIL, MF, as she is raising his daughter. No telling how his family is faring. It can't be great, IMO.

 

[citygirl]

Gracie is hard to figure out, because we really don't know what happened. The convenient convenience store with the convenient convenience clerk. Weird.

Besides, doesn't anyone think it is strange that they didn't have cameras there?
I know, it was 8 years ago, 2006, but come on!! They had cameras on Jason when
he filled up with gas in Raleigh, cameras on him when he went to eat at Cracker Barrel,
and cameras on him at the Hilton Inn.
And, LE said they set up surveillance tapes to find the mystery customer,so, they must have
had to install cameras, because the store didn't have any!!
And, why would they go to all that trouble of doing all that and then never showing her the tapes?
They said they couldn't figure out a way for her to see them........Huh?
They could have made c/d's of the tapes and sent them to her at a local police station near her to view. How were we supposed to buy this?

And, this is jmo,only, but I believe there may have been a time GB tried to bail on them, somehow they lost contact with her,(maybe she moved) and then they came and saw her to tell her they needed her and that her information was important. Maybe the SBI and LW showing up ( I think about 4-5 times) at her door, was a bit much for her.

JMO

Nope. Totally disagree. Gracie is solid, IMO.

 

[Glenn101]

Nope. Totally disagree. Gracie is solid, IMO.

Would you explain why you feel Gracie is solid with all of the information that has been presented about the inconsistencies in her testimonies, her admitted memory problems, the fact that she actually said that she had read about the case but reversed herself on the stand, she described Jason as being a little taller than herself with a little bit of hair, did not describe Jason or his vehicle prior to seeing pictures of them, and was shown those pictures by themseles and did not pick them out of any type of lineup????

I am not trying to be offensive here. I am really trying to understand the thought processes of those who believe Jason to be guilty.

I approach every case believing in the presumed innocent until proven guilty and the reasonable doubt principals. So I question every bit of evidence to see if it holds up to critical scrutiny. At this point, even if I believed that Jason had actually killed his wife, as a juror, I would not be able to pronounce him guilty because there just is such a dearth of any actual evidence that can link him to the crime and a lot of unanswered questions.

Glenn

 

[gritguy]

Except that this is the only testimony that directly contradicts JY's alibi. Everything else is speculation.

My lawyer friends can't believe that this has gone to trial in the first place with such flimsy evidence.

That's an interesting perspective and no doubt different attorneys can have different opinions. The ones I know and spoke to about it, Wake County particularly, were amazed that it took so long to go to trial. He did a pretty good job covering his tracks but not perfect. The gas station attendant to me was never an important witness, don't know if she was important to the second jury or not.

I can see how one can harbor doubt or even believe in innocence, I suppose, in this case, because everyone has the right to a perspective and people see things differently. However, the second jury was unanimous in finding guilt and the first split so it hardly seems like a case so flimsy it shouldn't have been brought in the first place.

Who knows what will happen. It is unlikely (about 5%) that the supreme court will visit the court of appeals ruling at all, and then it's down to the parties whether they want to deal or roll again on a third trial.

 

[JusticeFever]

She thought he was bald and about her height... SMH!! :gaah::facepalm:

I know, and it gets worse. When I have time I will post the testimony from Agent Greg Tart about the trip he took with Det. Spivey to try and locate GB........so, it looks like they did lose
track of her for awhile!!! Wow..this is what I thought, but I wasn't positive.

 

[gritguy]

I neither like nor dislike Gracie because I've never met her and have no basis for any personal opinion about her. As a witness, I believe she told the truth. I believe she did have an encounter that early morning and it did leave an impression on her. However, I could throw out her testimony altogether and still make a decision on the case. She wasn't the central piece or the star witness for me. Her testimony was some icing on the cake but the cake still exists without her IMO.

In any event, it is entirely up to the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses. If Gracie is so flagrantly lacking credibility, surely the jurors would have reduced the weight given to her testimony in their considerations. I give them the benefit of the doubt of exercising their judgment like we all do. I don't find Gracie compelling at all at this point, or critical to the case. Her testimony, to my recollection, was no part of the appeal. The appeal was on the admission of the prior civil judgments (success) and on the statement of the daughter on seeing her mother punished (unsuccessful).

 

[JusticeFever]

In any event, it is entirely up to the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses. If Gracie is so flagrantly lacking credibility, surely the jurors would have reduced the weight given to her testimony in their considerations. I give them the benefit of the doubt of exercising their judgment like we all do. I don't find Gracie compelling at all at this point, or critical to the case. Her testimony, to my recollection, was no part of the appeal. The appeal was on the admission of the prior civil judgments (success) and on the statement of the daughter on seeing her mother punished (unsuccessful).

But, the state thought she was important, they told her so, they made repeated trips to visit her, telling her that her information was important and that they needed her.
Even though they knew there was nothing to back her story up, nothing at all..
Talk about a wild card.

 

[gritguy]

But, the state thought she was important, they told her so, they made repeated trips to visit her, telling her that her information was important and that they needed her.
Even though they knew there was nothing to back her story up, nothing at all..
Talk about a wild card.

I agree that's sound logic. And certainly if she had been rock solid I think everyone can agree it would have been critical testimony. But, she was shaky. Shaky enough that even during her testimony people watching thought to discount her. How can we know the jury didn't discount her like other reasonable people would? Her defense team made her no part of the appeal.

However, if she were critical, certainly the defense would be ready even more so this time around to discredit her, should she be introduced as a witness again (I haven't followed if she is/isn't still around).

ETA: thinking about this a bit more, and just in my experience from a while back. In civil cases, I would readily discard shaky evidence/witnesses and keep the case as trim and tight as possible and as closely linked to the opening narrative as possible. In working criminal cases (state and defense but never at trial) and listening to them talk strategy, I found sometimes they felt that even on shaky witnesses you put them on the stand and let them tell the story and let the jury make of it what they will. Not saying good or bad, just a different strategy dynamic I recall from the old days.

 

[JusticeFever]

In any event, it is entirely up to the jury to assess the credibility of the witnesses. If Gracie is so flagrantly lacking credibility, surely the jurors would have reduced the weight given to her testimony in their considerations. I give them the benefit of the doubt of exercising their judgment like we all do. I don't find Gracie compelling at all at this point, or critical to the case. Her testimony, to my recollection, was no part of the appeal. The appeal was on the admission of the prior civil judgments (success) and on the statement of the daughter on seeing her mother punished (unsuccessful).

There is no excuse for not following the correct and proper protocol of having a witness pick out a suspect or person of interest from a photo line-up. According to Agent Tart,who testified for the state on this issue, a photographic line-up is an array of a least 6-8 minimum photos of individuals with similar facial structure, hair, race and they are shown to a witness in order to make an attempt
to identify someone.
We can discuss this forever, but this was not done, and it should have been, and that is why
GB's testimony will always have doubts, along with lots of other things from her testimony.
Most of us are aware of why the appeal was granted, it wasn't because of Gracie or any evidence, it is because of the ruling that proclaimed Jason Young a slayer.


Agent Tart:
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/video/9739341/

 

[gritguy]

There is no excuse for not following the correct and proper protocol of having a witness pick out a suspect or person of interest from a photo line-up. According to Agent Tart, a photographic
line-up is an array of a least 6-8 minimum photos of individuals with similar facial
structure, hair, race and they are shown to a witness in order to make an attempt
to identify someone.
We can discuss this forever, but this was not done, and it should have been, and that is why
GB's testimony will always have doubts, along with lots of other things from her testimony.
Most of us are aware of why the appeal was granted, it wasn't because of Gracie or any evidence, it is because of the ruling that proclaimed Jason Young a slayer.

On this particular point you bring up, I agree. Plus, she seemed (to the best of my recollection) just generally shaky anyway.

 

[Madeleine74]

A six pack (photo lineup) was not mandatory in 2006 at the time of the murder. It has since become standard and mandatory. Someone way upthread, maybe a couple months ago or so, even posted that. Can't climb in the wayback machine and redo the photo identification process from 2006. It is what it is (or what it was). A jury is the ultimate trier of fact and truth.

{ Hi GritGuy! }

 

[JusticeFever]

I agree that's sound logic. And certainly if she had been rock solid I think everyone can agree it would have been critical testimony. But, she was shaky. Shaky enough that even during her testimony people watching thought to discount her. How can we know the jury didn't discount her like other reasonable people would? Her defense team made her no part of the appeal.

However, if she were critical, certainly the defense would be ready even more so this time around to discredit her, should she be introduced as a witness again (I haven't followed if she is/isn't still around).

ETA: thinking about this a bit more, and just in my experience from a while back. In civil cases, I would readily discard shaky evidence/witnesses and keep the case as trim and tight as possible and as closely linked to the opening narrative as possible. In working criminal cases (state and defense but never at trial) and listening to them talk strategy, I found sometimes they felt that even on shaky witnesses you put them on the stand and let them tell the story and let the jury make of it what they will. Not saying good or bad, just a different strategy dynamic I recall from the old days.

You make a good point. We don't know how far the defense was allowed to go after GB.
If they came across too harsh, they would be bullies. This was a woman who suffered a horrible accident, claiming she left her brain on the highway. Perhaps the defense thought
that after she admitted that, it would be enough to undermine all credibility. Perhaps the Judge said hands off. We know from the pre-trial hearing, that the Judge was determined
to get this witness in, do you know he had to actually help her out while she tried to describe Jason? Was the defense allowed to call a medical doctor explaining GB's mental capacity or limitations? Was the defense allowed to explore her past, call witnesses to discredit her, like the state did with Mrs. Beaver?
Or, was GB off limits to the same harsh questioning that Mrs. Beaver was subjected to?

 

[gritguy]

You make a good point. We don't know how far the defense was allowed to go after GB.
If they came across too harsh, they would be bullies. This was a woman who suffered a horrible accident, claiming she left her brain on the highway. Perhaps the defense thought
that after she admitted that, it would be enough to undermine all credibility. Perhaps the Judge said hands off. We know from the pre-trial hearing, that the Judge was determined
to get this witness in, do you know he had to actually help her out? Was the defense allowed to call a medical doctor explaining GB's mental capacity or limitations? Was the defense allowed to explore her past, call witnesses to discredit her, like the state did with Mrs. Beaver?
Was GB off limits to the same harsh questioning that Mrs. Beaver was subjected to?

I admit I don't know the answers to those questions. I would agree she should be subject to any reasonable impeachment, and with latitude to the defendant on that score.

I won't wade in further on Gracie as I don't remember all she said or didn't say so I wouldn't be doing any justice to that debate beyond points I've made (or already conceded! ).

Anyone aggravated at the State pushing a witness beyond truly competent testimony has my sympathy as it does happen. The jury is a bulwark against that, though the system should be too.

It's just in this case, my recollection is that she wasn't so important to the overall case, but that's in my view and I don't know what in particular the jurors found ultimately compelling. I found other evidence very compelling though, and certainly thought the jury, IMO, reached the correct result.

Nevertheless, I too had read the parties briefs, the Court of Appeals opinion, and so far the state's case for supreme court review. I have to say in that I can see both sides, and so in my judgment the supreme court will not weigh in (5% chance I'm wrong, overall so safe bet), and JY gets to have this approached again.

 

[Boodles]

Hey gritguy, good to see you here. What do you think of the appeal issue? This judge is very senior and seasoned. Did you read the appeal? What's your take? I find it difficult to believe the judge "oops'd" on something like this. Is there a finer nuance to the judge's decision that the appeals court is missing?

 

[JusticeFever]

I admit I don't know the answers to those questions. I would agree she should be subject to any reasonable impeachment, and with latitude to the defendant on that score.

I won't wade in further on Gracie as I don't remember all she said or didn't say so I wouldn't be doing any justice to that debate beyond points I've made (or already conceded! ).

Anyone aggravated at the State pushing a witness beyond truly competent testimony has my sympathy as it does happen. The jury is a bulwark against that, though the system should be too.

It's just in this case, my recollection is that she wasn't so important to the overall case, but that's in my view and I don't know what in particular the jurors found ultimately compelling. I found other evidence very compelling though, and certainly thought the jury, IMO, reached the correct result.

Nevertheless, I too had read the parties briefs, the Court of Appeals opinion, and so far the state's case for supreme court review. I have to say in that I can see both sides, and so in my judgment the supreme court will not weigh in (5% chance I'm wrong, overall so safe bet), and JY gets to have this approached again.

So the over/ under is 5%, :wink: and the odds of a plea saying time served with 6-8 to go?
I would say 60-40 right now, a deal is in the works or has already been offered, along with Cooper's, if I were a betting person!!
And, I wouldn't touch the spread on GB in a Trial 3.

 

[gritguy]

Hey gritguy, good to see you here. What do you think of the appeal issue? This judge is very senior and seasoned. Did you read the appeal? What's your take? I find it difficult to believe the judge "oops'd" on something like this. Is there a finer nuance to the judge's decision that the appeals court is missing?

I read most of the documents.

The core defense points: that the probative value was well outweighed by the prejudicial impact and that the judge let them in to essentially prove a fact (against state statute) I think are good ones. Easy to say, the Court of Appeals ruled so 3-0. They noted several factors, including that the criminal trial judge was the judge on I think one of the civil verdicts. Though the judge gave limiting instructions, the CoA thought this impacted the ability of the defendant to secure a fair trial. I really do see this point.

The state briefed basically one that the points decided by the CoA were not preserved on appeal properly (I don't see the SC bothering on that one) and two that the judgments were mere impeachment showing essentially the defendant's tactics in how he told his story, and this is supported by various limiting instructions that the verdicts were not meant to prove the underlying facts. They cite a good chain of cases and the limiting instructions to back their contentions.

What happens? The supreme court will decide whether as a matter of discretion it takes up the case. The state has no right of hearing on this matter. From what I've seen, the SC takes up 3-5% of this sort of appeal. Long odds.

Since I'm persuaded of guilt, I'd love to say I'm outraged at the CoA decision, but I'm not. I think behind their points of law, the fact that the same judge was presiding who gave the slayer verdict was a bridge too far for them no matter the reason the state wanted the evidence in or limiting instructions. That's reading between the lines and just an opinion. It's hard to say that, objectively, is wrong.

Don't take my opinion for more than it's worth. I'm writing off the cuff and I've been out of the game long enough that I'm as stale as year old Wonder Bread!

 

[gritguy]

So the over/ under is 5%, :wink: and the odds of a plea saying time served with 6-8 to go?
I would say 60-40 right now, a deal is in the works or has already been offered, along with Cooper's, if I were a betting person!!
And, I wouldn't touch the spread on GB in a Trial 3.

I wouldn't bet against you on any of those counts!

 

[JusticeFever]

I wouldn't bet against you on any of those counts!

I would jump on a deal, I think Cooper and Brad are in their 30's, they would be out maybe mid-40's, I would take it in a NY second. But, I do not know what that would mean as far as their children, they may have to wait until they are of age, but better to have that than never
see them again. I don't know, I know in Jason's case, he has no defense team right now, until this ruling comes down, then he will most likely get a bond hearing, barring no jail infractions,most likely will make bail, and Cooper is already in Raleigh jail waiting for word.
At any rate, there won't be any trials until sometime in 2015, and who knows what they are going to do with Mike Peterson.......
Good talking to you,very polite and civil, GG, enjoyed it!! :seeya:

 

[sunshine05]

If there is a Trial 3, it is very probable that some of Gracie's testimony will be used from the other 2 trials and it is not going to be easy for the state to correct some of the things she messed up on, like the time she came to work, whether the gas pumps were turned off before she got there, did she turn them off, did the store have cameras that didn't work, or no cameras at all, and how the regular customer later turned into a newspaper person. Gracie's memory would not get better over time, loss of memory would mean it would get worse, much worse.

I'm sure Gracie's testimony will be used again........as will others from the first 2 trials.

Ahhh...something to remember that always brings a smile. JY's testimony will be used again by DA I'm sure, testimony he is locked into and can never, ever change.

As my attorney/judge relatives have stated...."he is surely scr*wed now" As stated, they think him guilty as hell and think the appeal technicality will get him absolutely nowhere.

This was hardly a technicality. Attempting to win a trial by presenting the outcome of the civil case was unprecedented in the history of US court cases. I feel confident that prosecutors (Cummings/ Willoughby) knew this would come back, but they didn't care. They knew it would tie things up for a long time. They know that a G verdict is damaging and even with a new trial, it is a difficult thing to overcome. [modsnip]. Whether one believes JY is guilty or innocent isn't important in the overall realm of things. The fact that one can no longer receive a fair trial should be concerning to everyone.

 

[Salem]

I think we are back to normal now. Please proceed. And thanks for waiting for me!

Salem