SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[Elisaa444]

I may be confused, but I thought the verdict was handed down late Monday afternoon and the Judge was made aware of the fb comments sometime thereafter?? Then it hit MSM Tuesday morning. I had a very long day today, but the verdict was Monday right?

MOO. Moo. Moo

Quoting my own post. Sorry Otto I see where this has been cleared up. I skipped a page due to exhaustion.

 

[Melanie]

Like in other cases, once the verdict was read and the sentencing was handed down, I stood up, brushed off my hands and said "well that's that".

Now what is all this nonsense? I don't want to see the family suffer anymore pain!

Mel

 

[otto]

I may be confused, but I thought the verdict was handed down late Monday afternoon and the Judge was made aware of the fb comments sometime thereafter?? Then it hit MSM Tuesday morning. I had a very long day today, but the verdict was Monday right?

MOO. Moo. Moo

You're quite right. I completely had my days mixed up. The verdict came down early Monday afternoon. The facebook comments were apparently noticed on Monday morning, but that does not mean that the Judge knew about them before he read the verdict and discharged the jury.

If he had known about them, he probably should have polled the jury.

 

[otto]

Like in other cases, once the verdict was read and the sentencing was handed down, I stood up, brushed off my hands and said "well that's that".

Now what is all this nonsense? I don't want to see the family suffer anymore pain!

Mel

I posted exactly that "that's that", however, there seems to be a bit of a problem with the jury where someone not on the jury posted something on Facebook about the proceedings in the jury room. The big question is whether that jury member is tainted, or whether it will be brushed off as the jury member attempting to notify a friend about when he or she would be free.

I think the point that needs to be clear is that the integrity of the process was upheld. One juror is all it takes to hang a jury and if one juror has some monkey buisness ... at the hair dressers, that's not a good sign - especially given the fact that this high profile case was heard before 12 "objective" jurors that had been bombarded with updates about the case for six years. Maybe the jury member was intimidated by the not guilty votes and chose to violate integrity to subvert the process.

 

[Talina]

Maybe nothing at all happened like what is being alleged by the person who posted on facebook.

Maybe nothing at all intimidated the jurors (as has been suggested) and the process with all its integrity shines brightly down upon this verdict.

I certain did not at all get the impression that the 3 jurors that spoke out yesterday were intimidated. I felt they were humbled by the process they had just participated in and took it very seriously.

At this point, I am giving all of the jurors the benefit of the doubt and will not participate in any speculation regarding misconduct by any of them. I think, without hesitation, they have earned that consideration by what they have done for the past 4+ weeks for this trial. Further, I think at this point, not one of them has done a thing to deserve anyone questioning their integrity as it pertains to their behavior or intentions on this jury.

IMO

 

[~n/t~]

So now it's more than one incident? Last night before I went to bed the only incident was the hairdresser one. This morning, I read this:

Another poster said a woman "met a fellow on the jury one evening and he talked about the trial the whole time." The poster said she told him "he should not speak of the trial. He said he was unbiased ..."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/07/1910896/jury-in-young-retrial-is-now-under.html

 

[Talina]

So now it's more than one incident? Last night before I went to bed the only incident was the hairdresser one. This morning, I read this:



http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/07/1910896/jury-in-young-retrial-is-now-under.html

That was out there yesterday too. I saw it early in the day when the hairdresser post was being discussed.

ETA: I think there was some speculation as to whether or not that person was really on the jury or if it was perhaps the person that was removed prior to the jury being seated.

I wonder if that person had anything at all to do with the trial and was just seeking attention in a bar by being someone they weren't. Who knows. This part of the story didn't get as much fanfare as the hairdresser story did.

IMO

 

[~n/t~]

That was out there yesterday too. I saw it early in the day when the hairdresser post was being discussed.

ETA: I think there was some speculation as to whether or not that person was really on the jury or if it was perhaps the person that was removed prior to the jury being seated.

I wonder if that person had anything at all to do with the trial and was just seeking attention in a bar by being someone they weren't. Who knows. This part of the story didn't get as much fanfare as the hairdresser story did.

IMO

Thanks. I must have missed this incident. Sounds like a lot of gossip/rumours, imo. He said/she said. Nonetheless, the Judge is doing what he should and it will be put to rest.

 

[Bottle Cap]

I'm still finding it impossible to take any of this seriously.

Unless I'm mistaken, when the previous palaver of potential jurors yakking on a board came about, some decent citizen contact the proper powers that be at the courthouse. I can't remember if it was the DA's office, but they used the correct channels to have it addressed.

If any of the folks involved in the current kerfluffle about juror misconduct had serious, fact-based, legitimate knowledge, it would have been handled by some other means than a FB post. At the very least, a call to WRAL. If you're that concerned and you have knowledge of misconduct in a trial of this magnitude, are you really going to take a chance posting it somewhere it may be missed entirely?

This whole thing just smacks of second grade chinese-whispers idiocy. An investigation is necessary, of course, you can't let this sort of rumor float around unaddressed. But an investigation gives it a level of validity that it probably doesn't warrant. That people are so quick to believe anything they read online posted by virtually anyone is testament to the fact that rumor has to be squashed by eating up other people's time, energy and money. IMO

 

[~n/t~]

I'm still finding it impossible to take any of this seriously.

Unless I'm mistaken, when the previous palaver of potential jurors yakking on a board came about, some decent citizen contact the proper powers that be at the courthouse. I can't remember if it was the DA's office, but they used the correct channels to have it addressed.

If any of the folks involved in the current kerfluffle about juror misconduct had serious, fact-based, legitimate knowledge, it would have been handled by some other means than a FB post. At the very least, a call to WRAL. If you're that concerned and you have knowledge of misconduct in a trial of this magnitude, are you really going to take a chance posting it somewhere it may be missed entirely?

This whole thing just smacks of second grade chinese-whispers idiocy. An investigation is necessary, of course, you can't let this sort of rumor float around unaddressed. But an investigation gives it a level of validity that it probably doesn't warrant. That people are so quick to believe anything they read online posted by virtually anyone is testament to the fact that rumor has to be squashed by eating up other people's time, energy and money. IMO

I guess some people are attention seekers and will post anything on FB or message boards or wherever. Some, of course, think that by using a moniker are immune to investigation or prosecution. Wrong.

 

[otto]

Maybe nothing at all happened like what is being alleged by the person who posted on facebook.

Maybe nothing at all intimidated the jurors (as has been suggested) and the process with all its integrity shines brightly down upon this verdict.

I certain did not at all get the impression that the 3 jurors that spoke out yesterday were intimidated. I felt they were humbled by the process they had just participated in and took it very seriously.

At this point, I am giving all of the jurors the benefit of the doubt and will not participate in any speculation regarding misconduct by any of them. I think, without hesitation, they have earned that consideration by what they have done for the past 4+ weeks for this trial. Further, I think at this point, not one of them has done a thing to deserve anyone questioning their integrity as it pertains to their behavior or intentions on this jury.

IMO

Integrity of the process ... 5/6 guilty and then 9/12 or 9/9 guilty - just like the facebook preview ... what excuse will we hear for overlooking the indescretion?

 

[otto]

So now it's more than one incident? Last night before I went to bed the only incident was the hairdresser one. This morning, I read this:

"Another poster said a woman "met a fellow on the jury one evening and he talked about the trial the whole time." The poster said she told him "he should not speak of the trial. He said he was unbiased ..."

http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/07/1910896/jury-in-young-retrial-is-now-under.html

Bizarre ... is that all going to be swept under the carpet?

 

[otto]

I'm still finding it impossible to take any of this seriously.

Unless I'm mistaken, when the previous palaver of potential jurors yakking on a board came about, some decent citizen contact the proper powers that be at the courthouse. I can't remember if it was the DA's office, but they used the correct channels to have it addressed.

If any of the folks involved in the current kerfluffle about juror misconduct had serious, fact-based, legitimate knowledge, it would have been handled by some other means than a FB post. At the very least, a call to WRAL. If you're that concerned and you have knowledge of misconduct in a trial of this magnitude, are you really going to take a chance posting it somewhere it may be missed entirely?

This whole thing just smacks of second grade chinese-whispers idiocy. An investigation is necessary, of course, you can't let this sort of rumor float around unaddressed. But an investigation gives it a level of validity that it probably doesn't warrant. That people are so quick to believe anything they read online posted by virtually anyone is testament to the fact that rumor has to be squashed by eating up other people's time, energy and money. IMO

It actually landed in the hands of the judge and he fired off a couple of letters to the facebook owner and the CBI. He wants it looked into as the integrity of the process is more important that a verdict, et cetera.

Under what citcumstances would you dismiss juror misconduct and a failture in the integrity of the process?

 

[otto]

I guess some people are attention seekers and will post anything on FB or message boards or wherever. Some, of course, think that by using a moniker are immune to investigation or prosecution. Wrong.

It could be an attention seeker, but the coincidences between that attention seeker and 5 guilty, then 9 guilty, were awfully accurate.

 

[otto]

"While we were deliberating, we started naming all of these coincidences," said juror Anthony Fuller. "It was like, 'How do you just have so many coincidences?'

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10822718/

From the jury: " though Cassidy Young left bloody footprints around her mother's body and throughout the house, the toddler's feet and pajamas were clean by the time Michelle Young's sister discovered her body"

The above is not true. She had blood on her pyjamas and feet.

Oh no ... some think it's possible to have 150/100, like quartering an apple and having five pieces out or four ... absurd.

"I am 150 percent, absolutely positive that Jason Young did it. Michelle Young had no enemies," Axline said.

What exactly does this mean?

"He said the jury had to made its decision based on the facts and, when he saw Michelle Young's family react tearfully to the verdict, he knew they had done the right thing."

 

[otto]

The more I read, the more dumbfounded I am about the criminal justice system in North Carolina ... I enjoyed the comment about how a different 12 people could have come up with a completely different verdict. Really? Aren't peers supposed to share the same ideology?

 

[Bottle Cap]

It actually landed in the hands of the judge and he fired off a couple of letters to the facebook owner and the CBI. He wants it looked into as the integrity of the process is more important that a verdict, et cetera.

Under what citcumstances would you dismiss juror misconduct and a failture in the integrity of the process?

It absolutely can't be dismissed, and I'm not saying it should be. However, the means by which the judge was made aware of it is, to me, so roundabout as to be just silly. "So and so said such and such on FB". I work in a middle school. I hear this stuff all day long.

I still maintain that if I'm the sort of person who is concerned about juror misconduct, and I have some pertinent knowledge, I'm not going to post it on anybody's FB page and sit back just waiting and hoping that someone sees it and does something. I'm going to make that call myself to ensure that it's addressed. I'm going to give the information I have - specific who's, what's and where's. That isn't what happened. Now the Judge Stephens, via the SBI, is having to devote his time to gathering information that should be a part of any serious reporting of misconduct.

 

[Talina]

Integrity of the process ... 5/6 guilty and then 9/12 or 9/9 guilty - just like the facebook preview ... what excuse will we hear for overlooking the indescretion?

My own review of the reports in the news, the facebook postings, the jurors interviews yesterday do not agree with your post as far as the FB postings matching up with the progress of the deliberations.

Until SBI conducts its investigation and Judge Stephens determines if any of this has any merit or if it is all someones attempt to insert themselves into the limelight by posting things on a social media board, I'm still sticking to my position that the jury deserves the full benefit of the doubt.

I'm not in favor of jumping to the conclusion or even considering suggestions that anything untoward has happened and is being swept under any rug. That is stretching at this point IMO and not deserving of anyone involved in this process.

IMO

ETA:Judge Stephens says in his own letter to the juror that was released yesterday that this is not that uncommon of an allegation. Apparently, he's not surprised. It's a shame that people make these sorts of allegations that apparently appear to be far more untrue than true.

What the media tends to report and people latch on to is the sensationalism of the accusation but when it fizzles out to be nothing, well..that gets not near the reporting because it's not sensational.

In the meantime, though, we see accusations against jurors, speculation about what happened, speculation turns into fact (with no basis), the system's integrity is questioned and turned on its ear and when it is all said and done, was there really anything that initially had any truth to it at all?

I wish people would just calm down, let the investigation take its course and then respond with their thoughts and feelings based on facts. Not assumptions and speculation.

IMO

 

[Ada]

snip...

One of the more interesting remarks from jurors was that because the size 10 print was so clear (heel included), it must have been staged. That was straight off a program discussed here last weeked. Dateline or 48 Hours had a program about a son that murdered his parents. The son, a size 10 shoe, wore a size 12 shoe and because the prints were so obvious, investigators assumed it was staged. It was. I was surprised to hear that from a juror. As I watched the program, starting with the staged prints, I wondered if any jurors were watching it.

Could social media gossip become the downfall of the integrity of the legal system?

BBM

As I was reading along, here, during the trial, I think I saw several WS posters coming to the same conclusion about the size 10 shoe prints, prior to the 48 Hours show. If this is the case, then there's no reason to think that the Jury wouldn't have had the same thoughts.

 

[Wolfpack]

So now it's more than one incident? Last night before I went to bed the only incident was the hairdresser one. This morning, I read this:



http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/03/07/1910896/jury-in-young-retrial-is-now-under.html

I think that could be referring to the juror who was kicked off in the first few days for talking about the case in a restaurant.