Jason Young to get new trial

[JusticeFever]

bbm

I heard it right after Kim asked her questions, during the 911 call, about what happened. Kim said, "Did she fall?" After that, CY said, "Daddy did it." I heard her say it again and again on the full call. The 911 call was edited for, IIRC, in part, to do away with raspiness that is always on taped calls. But it was there on the original version. Others heard it as well. Some folks couldn't hear it, so there it all is. IMO.

Kim could not say what she heard CY say, that day or afterwards -- hearsay, of course.

ETA: Anyway, that statement of CY's was never in evidence, as I stated above, so it prolly shouldn't be on the list I made.

But, if Michelle's daughter clearly said those words , why weren't they allowed in as part of the 911 call testimony?

 

[MyBelle]

bbm

I heard it right after Kim asked her questions, during the 911 call, about what happened. Kim said, "Did she fall?" After that, CY said, "Daddy did it." I heard her say it again and again on the full call. The 911 call was edited for, IIRC, in part, to do away with raspiness that is always on taped calls. But it was there on the original version. Others heard it as well. Some folks couldn't hear it, so there it all is. IMO.

Kim could not say what she heard CY say, that day or afterwards -- hearsay, of course.

ETA: Anyway, that statement of CY's was never in evidence, as I stated above, so it prolly shouldn't be on the list I made.

I think you mean Meredith. I think if CY had really said that on the call, the prosecution would have entered it as evidence as "an excited utterance" which is an exception to the hearsay rule. The Appeals Court pointed that out in their review about the daycare testimony.

 

[borndem]

I'm skeptical of the daycare employee's interpretation of child play. As far as I understand, she had no formal training in early childhood behavior. Trained professionals rely on knowledge, experience, training, hours of observation, and a couple of university degrees to develop insight into what a child is thinking during play, yet we are asked to accept the interpretation of a young, untrained daycare employee that the child's play was related to a murder.

I didn't see/hear her testimony as an interpretation, otto. She was simply telling what she saw & what she heard. IIRC, that testimony was voir-dired at the judge's order before the jury saw it.

 

[otto]

I don't know about the custody situation other than it is one reason given for the retrial. She may be seeing her dad and talking on the phone right now and it is a non-issue.

I've wondered about not just MS but also the woman, MM who Jason was talking on the phone with constantly. She knew he was out of town. The other thing that nagged at me is whether Michelle's murder was tied to the murder of the pregnant newspaper carrier. For that to have happened, I think she had to have been watched for her routine. I think it is still unsolved. So many directions to consider yet it seems the focus was totally on Jason from the start.

The custody dispute was only part of the appeal because the decision was used against him when it shouldn't have been.

I still think that the Alford Plea would be the best of all possibilities for Young at this time. The murder was in 2006. He's been in prison off and on for the last 8 years. If he can be permanently released from prison after a couple of more years, he can at least have something of a life afterward.

Given how the last two trials have gone, I think that a conviction is still likely.

 

[otto]

I didn't see/hear her testimony as an interpretation, otto. She was simply telling what she saw & what she heard. IIRC, that testimony was voir-dired at the judge's order before the jury saw it.

I have a problem with accepting a two year old's interpretation of an event as fact. There is a good reason why 2 year olds are not allowed to testify. The child described that her mother was "getting a spanking for biting". (pg 19; http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2014/04/01/13529333/April_1_2014_Appeals_Court_Opinion.pdf ). If this means that Jason was hitting Michelle because Michelle bit him, he should have bite marks. Either Michelle did bite her attacker, and Jason is not her attacker, or Jason is her attacker and the child was confused about what happened. If there was no biting, then we know there's a problem with the child's statement.

If the child witnessed her father beating her mother, why didn't she state that her father was spanking her mother because of biting? Why did she only identify her mother?

 

[MyBelle]

The custody dispute was only part of the appeal because the decision was used against him when it shouldn't have been.

I still think that the Alford Plea would be the best of all possibilities for Young at this time. The murder was in 2006. He's been in prison off and on for the last 8 years. If he can be permanently released from prison after a couple of more years, he can at least have something of a life afterward.

Given how the last two trials have gone, I think that a conviction is still likely.

We'll have to see what Young decides to do. His attorneys might not agree with you. I think Brad Cooper is going to go for another trial rather than plea and JY might feel the same way. I sure haven't concluded he is guilty. Too many holes...

 

[MyBelle]

I have a problem with accepting a two year old's interpretation of an event as fact. There is a good reason why 2 year olds are not allowed to testify. The child described that her mother was "getting a spanking for biting". (pg 19; http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2014/04/01/13529333/April_1_2014_Appeals_Court_Opinion.pdf ). If this means that Jason was hitting Michelle because Michelle bit him, he should have bite marks. Either Michelle did bite her attacker, and Jason is not her attacker, or Jason is her attacker and the child was confused about what happened. If there was no biting, then we know there's a problem with the child's statement.

If the child witnessed her father beating her mother, why didn't she state that her father was spanking her mother because of biting? Why did she only identify her mother?

Good questions. There was another case in roughly the same time frame where a 2-year-old saw Daddy carry Mommy out of the house wrapped in a bedspread. I can't recall the names but bedspread turned out a rug (or the other way around) but it still resulted in a conviction.

What will be interesting is if the defense will offer any witnesses who heard excited utterances from CY that provide more details about what she saw and if it points away from Jason.

 

[otto]

We'll have to see what Young decides to do. His attorneys might not agree with you. I think Brad Cooper is going to go for another trial rather than plea and JY might feel the same way. I sure haven't concluded he is guilty. Too many holes...

I think that Brad Cooper should also take the Alford Plea. The fact that NC courts allow a suspect's character to be introduced through opinionated neighbors and friends seems to disadvantage every suspect that has ever done something questionable. For Brad, it was questionable that he was quiet and reserved. For Jason, it was questionable that he was outgoing and loud. Both of them had rocky marriages, like pretty much everyone they knew, and they both looked outside the marriage for companionship. Each time, the character traits were interpreted in the worst possible way and used against them.

 

[borndem]

I doubt that it would be in the child's best interest to be subjected to a custody dispute at this time. In many places, a child's voice/preference is respected by the courts when the child is 14 years of age. At that time, the child might want a relationship with her father. I suppose that denying visitation could be a consequence of the Alford Plea, but, in my opinion, it's never benefits a child to interfere with a relationship with either parent.

Either way, if the choice is life in prison, or release in a couple of years; possibly with disrupted relationships with friends and family, I think the Alford Plea is still the best option.

You may be right, otto.

What would he plea to, STS -- 1st murder (yes, not very likely, by a long shot, I just put it in there), 2nd murder -- what? And would the State be interested in discussing an Alford plea? I think so... JMO

Here's a good article on the Alford plea:

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=1198

 

[JusticeFever]

I'm all for a fair trial, HE GOT ONE!!! As a matter of fact, he GOT TWO!

I believe he got 2, because the first jury could not convict him. In fact, I think the first verdict or non-verdict was more in his favor.

 

[JusticeFever]

I think that Brad Cooper should also take the Alford Plea. The fact that NC courts allow a suspect's character to be introduced through opinionated neighbors and friends seems to disadvantage every suspect that has ever done something questionable. For Brad, it was questionable that he was quiet and reserved. For Jason, it was questionable that he was outgoing and loud. Both of them had rocky marriages, like pretty much everyone they knew, and they both looked outside the marriage for companionship. Each time, the character traits were interpreted in the worst possible way and used against them.

I am curious as to what the families of Nancy Cooper and Michelle Young will want.
Just recently, I read that Janet Abaroa's family was disappointed he would not spend his life in prison but they understood the decision to not go forward.

Would the families in these 2 cases feel the same, and aren't there custody issues involved here as well?

But, I do agree that pleas would save the state and court time and money, so this could be something we see down the line.
I was upset with the Abaroa plea deal but I do see much more reasonable doubt in these 2 cases/

Has the state issued a comment on these appellate rulings yet?

 

[MyBelle]

I think that Brad Cooper should also take the Alford Plea. The fact that NC courts allow a suspect's character to be introduced through opinionated neighbors and friends seems to disadvantage every suspect that has ever done something questionable. For Brad, it was questionable that he was quiet and reserved. For Jason, it was questionable that he was outgoing and loud. Both of them had rocky marriages, like pretty much everyone they knew, and they both looked outside the marriage for companionship. Each time, the character traits were interpreted in the worst possible way and used against them.

I don't see either one taking the plea because I don't believe the state has enough evidence to convict either one of them. That's why the prosecution had to rely on tactics such as the child custody ruling and the default loss of the wrongful death lawsuit in Young's case. There were witnesses totally ignored by cops in the Cooper case.

Being outgoing and loud is not evidence of murder. If either jury used character traits to form an opinion of guilt, then our system of justice is seriously, seriously broken, imo.

 

[otto]

You may be right, otto.

What would he plea to, STS -- 1st murder (yes, not very likely, by a long shot, I just put it in there), 2nd murder -- what? And would the State be interested in discussing an Alford plea? I think so... JMO

Here's a good article on the Alford plea:

http://nccriminallaw.sog.unc.edu/?p=1198

Thanks for the link! I'm half way through reading it, but now I'm wondering about the Alford Plea. Did Abaroa use the Alford Plea for second degree murder, and that's why his sentence was 95-123 months? Jason cannot admit to second degree murder because he was supposedly in Virginia. Wouldn't it have to be either first degree or nothing? Would he still be sentenced for life if he used the Alford Plea for first degree murder?

If that's the case, then the Alford Plea would not be a good option for Jason.

Brad Cooper could still use the Alford Plea for second degree and be back home in a few years.

 

[JusticeFever]

I was doing some reading at WRAL, is it true Colin Willoughby is no longer in office?
Who took his place? :scared:

 

[otto]

I don't see either one taking the plea because I don't believe the state has enough evidence to convict either one of them. That's why the prosecution had to rely on tactics such as the child custody ruling and the default loss of the wrongful death lawsuit in Young's case. There were witnesses totally ignored by cops in the Cooper case.

Being outgoing and loud is not evidence of murder. If either jury used character traits to form an opinion of guilt, then our system of justice is seriously, seriously broken, imo.

The NC courts allow testimony about the suspect's character, so clearly it is something that is weighed during deliberations.

 

[otto]

I am curious as to what the families of Nancy Cooper and Michelle Young will want.
Just recently, I read that Janet Abaroa's family was disappointed he would not spend his life in prison but they understood the decision to not go forward.

Would the families in these 2 cases feel the same, and aren't there custody issues involved here as well?

But, I do agree that pleas would save the state and court time and money, so this could be something we see down the line.
I was upset with the Abaroa plea deal but I do see much more reasonable doubt in these 2 cases/

Has the state issued a comment on these appellate rulings yet?

I think that the families of the victims could have an agenda to keep the suspects away from the children, but whether that translates into wanting the suspects to waste away in prison for the next fifty years is another question altogether. I would hope that they would want to move past this, if only to avoid the financial and emotional cost. Both families have to interrupt their lives, travel to another region, testify, and once again relive the most painful experience of their lives. I can't imagine that anyone would make that choice if it could be avoided.

 

[Boodles]

I'm skeptical of the daycare employee's interpretation of child play. As far as I understand, she had no formal training in early childhood behavior. Trained professionals rely on knowledge, experience, training, hours of observation, and a couple of university degrees to develop insight into what a child is thinking during play, yet we are asked to accept the interpretation of a young, untrained daycare employee that the child's play was related to a murder.

Did you see the testimony?

It was evident to me that both daycare witnesses described their observations. I didn't hear any interpretations. Their testimony was carefully extracted and given. They did not testify as expert witnesses. They did not give opinion regarding reasons for CY's behavior and actions.

 

[Madeleine74]

I was doing some reading at WRAL, is it true Colin Willoughby is no longer in office?
Who took his place? :scared:

He retired from the DA position after some 30 years in office (or rather, declined to run again). Then he was offered a position in a law firm, which is why he left now as opposed to waiting out his term. He's probably making some major buckaroos with the new offer.

 

[jova33]

Did you see the testimony?

It was evident to me that both daycare witnesses described their observations. I didn't hear any interpretations. Their testimony was carefully extracted and given. They did not testify as expert witnesses. They did not give opinion regarding reasons for CY's behavior and actions.

The whole daycare testimony doesn't prove anything except CY possibly saw her mother murdered. She never once said that the attacker was daddy.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Tulessa]

I have a problem with accepting a two year old's interpretation of an event as fact. There is a good reason why 2 year olds are not allowed to testify. The child described that her mother was "getting a spanking for biting". (pg 19; http://www.wral.com/asset/news/local/2014/04/01/13529333/April_1_2014_Appeals_Court_Opinion.pdf ). If this means that Jason was hitting Michelle because Michelle bit him, he should have bite marks. Either Michelle did bite her attacker, and Jason is not her attacker, or Jason is her attacker and the child was confused about what happened. If there was no biting, then we know there's a problem with the child's statement.

If the child witnessed her father beating her mother, why didn't she state that her father was spanking her mother because of biting? Why did she only identify her mother?

Fear, threats.