SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[krkrjx]

Didn't the judge say somthing to the jurors about media and integrity at the time he thanked them? He already knew that there was a question of misconduct on Tuesday morning and the verdict was Tuesday afternoon. Is that clip posted somewhere? I'd like to listen to that again. I do recall that at the time I thought he belabored the point.

The verdict was Monday afternoon.

 

[Salem]

It was 5 guilty at the outset according to the foreperson and 5 guilty according to the post on the facebook page ... another coincidence? That may have changed to 9 guilty after another vote - that we don't know yet. If that did happen, I think there's a problem. Discussions during deliberations probably means that there were a lot more discussions throughout the trial.

Any chance you have a link for this Otto? I thought I remembered that they started out 6/6 and they went from there. I'm not remembering any 5/7 split.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[Kellbell]

They probably did. It could be as innocent as the juror contacting a friend to indicate that a decision was close. It could also be a juror with a friend that has closely followed the case and has inadvertently influenced that juror's opinion.

So true... I guess we will all know soon enough what the deal is. I watch a lot of these trials, but I don't think I have come across one quite like this before. So many years, no strong evidence, just a whole lot of questions still hanging out there. if he did commit this crime, he deserves life, but what if he didn't. Just seems to me something keeps this crime in the news.

 

[otto]

Any chance you have a link for this Otto? I thought I remembered that they started out 6/6 and they went from there. I'm not remembering any 5/7 split.

Thanks,

Salem

Here's one link, to copies of the facebook page:

http://www.wral.com/asset/specialreports/michelleyoung/2012/03/06/10821695/20120306170659598.pdf

Post #139 on this thread:

Interesting that the hairdresser friend knew it was 5 Guilty at the start and that's confirmed by others on the jury. The hairdresser friend says it changed to 9 guilty. Perhaps that reflects the second vote in the jury room.

"My hairdresser is friends with a jury member on the JY trial. They are now deadlocked at 9 Guilty 3 Not Guilty. It was 7 Not Guilty 5 Guilty!" according to one message posted around noon Monday."

http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10820046/

"Votes initially: 4 men G 1 women G : NG 1 women. Rest were undecided."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164955&page=9

Thanks to Stella5 for transcribing:

"Votes - 6/6 initial on Fri; all 4 men guilty 1 woman g, 1 ng - the rest undecided then we started putting the pieces together. Took a vote before & after the break, used the 20 minute break to come to terms with their decision. Jury got along really well & have plans to go out to dinner soon. Judge Stephens statement gave them confirmation they did the right thing."

Six people voted, five guilty, one not guilty; the other six didn't vote. Undecided means they didn't vote during that round. Of those that voted, five out of six were in favor of a guilty verdict ... just like what was posted on the facebook page before the verdict was announced. It's possible that in the second round of voting, 9/12 people voted and by then, it was 9 guilty. If so, that's a problem

 

[otto]

The verdict was Monday afternoon.

Thank you! I'm mixed up about my days and it's only Tuesday! I thnk the news site knew about it Monday morning ... so perhaps the Judge didn't know until after it was all over. Would the have polled the jurors before the verdict if he knew in advance?

 

[otto]

So true... I guess we will all know soon enough what the deal is. I watch a lot of these trials, but I don't think I have come across one quite like this before. So many years, no strong evidence, just a whole lot of questions still hanging out there. if he did commit this crime, he deserves life, but what if he didn't. Just seems to me something keeps this crime in the news.

I'd have to agree. For some odd reason I read about this case the day it was first reported and have followed it since. 6 years is a long time - I've never done that before, never expected it to go on this long. I flipped from guilty to not guilty after hearing the prosecution's case - I didn't think they had enough and still have questions. The Karen Swift case will probably be like this one.

 

[cody100]

This just doesn't look good to me. To be able to know 5 Guilty at noon on Monday is more than coincidental MOO. I believe the votes did go from the 5 G, 1NG, and 6 undecided on first vote to 7G, 5 undecided by end of Friday. Then on Monday went to 9G 3NG to 10G 2 NG, 11 G 1NG to finally 12 G on Monday. Then they asked for a 20 minute break to pray over their decision: Here is the websleuth reference. I suspect this will all be checked out thoroughly by the SBI. The above info was from Jury Fore person I believe.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164955&page=10

 

[Kellbell]

I'd have to agree. For some odd reason I read about this case the day it was first reported and have followed it since. 6 years is a long time - I've never done that before, never expected it to go on this long. I flipped from guilty to not guilty after hearing the prosecution's case - I didn't think they had enough and still have questions. The Karen Swift case will probably be like this one.

Omg! I hope not... She was found dead in TN thought to be missing, right...

 

[otto]

This just doesn't look good to me. To be able to know 5 Guilty at noon on Monday is more than coincidental MOO. I believe the votes did go from the 5 G, 1NG, and 6 undecided on first vote to 7G, 5 undecided by end of Friday. Then on Monday went to 9G 3NG to 10G 2 NG, 11 G 1NG to finally 12 G on Monday. Then they asked for a 20 minute break to pray over their decision: Here is the websleuth reference. I suspect this will all be checked out thoroughly by the SBI. The above info was from Jury Fore person I believe.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164955&page=10

It's another one of those unusual coincidences about this case, I suppose. Someone posted the jury position before the verdict and today two jurors came forward and confirmed what was posted on Facebook.

Thanks for the numbers ... doesn't look good. Perhaps an innocent reason will be found for a juror violating the integrity of the process - I'd like to hear that one. If whatever happened is okay, then it will happen from now on.

 

[otto]

Omg! I hope not... She was found dead in TN thought to be missing, right...

I don't want to go too off topic, but in terms of similarities, it has Brad Cooper written all over it. In terms of difficulty in nailing the husband, it has Jason Young written all over it. Investigators are being very careful not to put information into social media in the TN case.

 

[Kellbell]

I'd have to agree. For some odd reason I read about this case the day it was first reported and have followed it since. 6 years is a long time - I've never done that before, never expected it to go on this long. I flipped from guilty to not guilty after hearing the prosecution's case - I didn't think they had enough and still have questions. The Karen Swift case will probably be like this one.

My biggest question about this is Cassidy being clean. I get they say he washed her clothes, fine, could have happened. But if he left the house at 4-4:30, that still leaves her alone for 9 hours and she didn't go back and try to wake MY up or touch her. I don't get that. I also don't understand why the shoes he had on at Cracker Barrell could not have been the Kenneth Cole brown slip ons they have in evidence. How can anyone say they were the Hushpuppies, or the jeans the foreperson said they were not the same, how could they tell.

 

[Kellbell]

I don't want to go too off topic, but in terms of similarities, it has Brad Cooper written all over it. In terms of difficulty in nailing the husband, it has Jason Young written all over it. Investigators are being very careful not to put information into social media in the TN case.

Smart thinking on their part...

 

[krkrjx]

Thank you! I'm mixed up about my days and it's only Tuesday! I thnk the news site knew about it Monday morning ... so perhaps the Judge didn't know until after it was all over. Would the have polled the jurors before the verdict if he knew in advance?

I have not read all the articles about it but I read one of the first ones out after this news was made public, and that article said the news site found the posts Monday afternoon and informed the judge Monday afternoon. No time was given, so it may have been after the verdict that the posts were found. I do believe the judge was not informed until after the verdict. It would make sense that the posts were not found right away because on Monday morning into lunch time and beyond most news people could have been preoccupied with what was going on in the courtroom. They may not have looked at the website at all for a good chunk of time that day.

 

[Lucky89]

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


Jurors: Lacking physical evidence pointed to Jason Young's guilt

video at link / interview with Ms Raksnis

 

[fran]

Just :bump: in case anyone missed this.

IMHO, this is NOT true/ie. juror misconduct!

We've been there, done that! in this media area. Seems there MAY BE mischief makers among them. Or, ......... at least the WRAL viewership/ie. well the entire nation!

It will MOST likely be proven to be unfounded.

I haven't been able to find an article that states the outcome of the alleged misconduct investigation in the Cooper case. Since Bradly is behind bars STILL, where he belongs I might add! This is but a RUSE to cause dissent and confusion once again, only this time in the Young case.

Young has been found guilty by, a group of 12, of his peers, and he's going to spend the rest of his life in prison. :jail:

He's toast!:behindbar:

JMHO
fran

OT but RELEVANT!

Sound familiar?


fran


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/nancycooper/story/9328978/
Cooper judge orders probe of possible juror misconduct

Superior Court Judge Paul Gessner received an e-mail Friday morning about one of the jurors allegedly talking in public about the case.

 

[otto]

My biggest question about this is Cassidy being clean. I get they say he washed her clothes, fine, could have happened. But if he left the house at 4-4:30, that still leaves her alone for 9 hours and she didn't go back and try to wake MY up or touch her. I don't get that. I also don't understand why the shoes he had on at Cracker Barrell could not have been the Kenneth Cole brown slip ons they have in evidence. How can anyone say they were the Hushpuppies, or the jeans the foreperson said they were not the same, how could they tell.

I'm post a response in the verdict thread ... because my response is not really about the jury.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164955&page=13

 

[otto]

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


Jurors: Lacking physical evidence pointed to Jason Young's guilt

" Jurors in Jason Young's second murder trial in Wake County said Tuesday that the lack of physical evidence in the case pointed to the defendant's guilt rather than his innocence"

Unbelievable! They bought into the CSI TV cliche stated by the prosecution during closing arguments: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Yes, we know that, but that quote is not meant to be used in a court of law.

The fact that it cannot be proven that he was not there is not meant to be interpretted as meaning that he was there at the time of the murder. What a slippery slope the criminal justice system is on ... first the forensic lab, then a prosecutor is fired, witness testimony presenting rumor rather than that of the attending accident investigator, what next ...

 

[krkrjx]

" Jurors in Jason Young's second murder trial in Wake County said Tuesday that the lack of physical evidence in the case pointed to the defendant's guilt rather than his innocence"

Unbelievable! They bought into the CSI TV cliche stated by the prosecution during closing arguments: "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Yes, we know that, but that quote is not meant to be used in a court of law.

The fact that it cannot be proven that he was not there is not meant to be interpretted as meaning that he was there at the time of the murder. What a slippery slope the criminal justice system is on ... first the forensic lab, then a prosecutor is fired, witness testimony presenting rumor rather than that of the attending accident investigator, what next ...

None of this would constitute jury misconduct.

And at any rate, I believe the jury was referring to the lack of physical evidence that another person was there at the time of the murder (other than JY).

 

[otto]

None of this would constitute jury misconduct.

And at any rate, I believe the jury was referring to the lack of physical evidence that another person was there at the time of the murder (other than JY).

So ... there was a lack of physical evidence of a third party, other than the unidentified finger/palm prints, missing child's tooth holder, unknown DNA on the jewelry box, unidentified print on the medicine dropper (or was it the packaging for the medcine?), size 10 shoe print and porch/driveway lights on. That may mean there's a lack of physical evidence of some other guy, but it doesn't mean that the default suspect (husband) is guilty. In a court of law bsence of evidence should be evidence of absence ... not the opposite. The question is not whether Jason was ever at the scene, but whether he was at the scene at the time of the murder. Absence of evidence, in this case, does not mean that he was there at the time of the murder.

Jury misconduct only relates to whether any jury member was in contact with the public during the trial in this case. Given the accuracy in describing the jury's position during deliberations, prior to verdict, it seem likely that the facebook person was in touch with someone on the jury. This means it's possible that there were 13 jurors, there was a juror by proxy, or perhaps a tainted juror ... or maybe one person was updating another person about when it would be over.

 

[Elisaa444]

Didn't the judge say somthing to the jurors about media and integrity at the time he thanked them? He already knew that there was a question of misconduct on Tuesday morning and the verdict was Tuesday afternoon. Is that clip posted somewhere? I'd like to listen to that again. I do recall that at the time I thought he belabored the point.

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