SBI probe into possible juror misconduct

[enzeder]

Sorry if this article has already been posted.

Jury misconduct questions are disturbing, attorney says
http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10827271/

 

[MyBelle]

Saying she is backpeddling days later is total speculation because we have absolutely no way of knowing what, if anything, was edited out of her interview with the TV.

ETA: nor do we know when this interview was given (i.e. that it was days later after the tv interview)

My opinion is based on what she actually said in the tv interview.

 

[Lucky89]

Absolutely the fact that the defendant didn't talk to police should not be used against him, but the jury is free to wonder why the defendant's attorney, on his behalf, never inquired how the investigation was proceeding. That's not answering questions, that's asking questions. They were free to wonder why JY never discussed the murder with anyone in his family, wouldn't say a word about it to his friends in 5 years.

The 5th amendment says nothing about discussions with anyone else.

The jury is absolutely free and within their rights to consider the defendant's behaviors. Plus former friends of JY were witnesses in the trial and they testified to how he acted with them afterwards, how he avoided them, and the weird things he did say to them. That's all part of the evidence and a jury can consider that, if they so choose.

You're taking a parsed statement and assigning your own meaning to it. His "not talking" refers to what, exactly? You don't know. You're assuming the juror is referring to the police and his not talking to police.

I agree, per Judge Stephens: I also instruct u that this 5th amendment protection applies only to police questioning. It does not apply to questions ask by civilians including family & friends of the defendant and family & friends of the victim.

 

[HarleyP]

I'm not convinced that a juror, possibly communicating with an outside party regarding the case while sitting on a jury, would not influence the outcome. That person's one vote could change the outcome. If that one vote was influenced by an outside party that may have partcipated in discussions regarding the case, there's a problem.

Points that were surprising, coming from the jury, were that they could tell the child had been cleaned up and no one but her father would do that, that since he could not produce his clothes (prove he is innocent), he must have used them to murder his wife.

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?

I agree and have read where other people have similar thoughts on possible coincidence in wording. It's probably nothing, but even so, only good can come from a very very thorough investigation. Let's get rid of all suspicions about the verdict once and for all.

It is crucial that jurors in any case only consider the facts in evidence. I do worry that it would be easy for jurors to pop into a site like this and possibly be influenced.

 

[HarleyP]

OMG! Was away most of the day and what a shock to read this!!! :banghead:

I don't believe it, thus I will sleep better tonight!

FB is a "beast in itself!" Or can be!

Unbelievable what some post there!

A beast in itself is so true. Call me old fashioned, but IMO FaceBook (and sites like it) are the worst things to ever come along. It is a breeding ground for all sorts of problematic things. It is a source for identity theives, con artists, child preditors, bullying, stalking and other crime. Young adults & kids post things not realizing it is "forever." People are realizing the consequences of things posted years ago. Employers, insurance companies and creditors routinely check these sites. As with any information posted online, even if you delete the information, if you have EVER shared it with friends, it may very well still exist.

Having one's life on FaceBook is a very risky thing IMO.

 

[HarleyP]

I personally think that most of these jurors had knowledge of this case prior to being chosen. Not to mention after they were picked prolly went home and looked it up. Most of them most likely watched the entire first trial online. There was nothing stopping them from doing so, only their own conscience.

Their conscience to uphold the law and abide by their sworn OATH they wont to any of that and base their verdict only on what is presented to them in court, even if they have prior knowledge of the case. I don't think that is asking too much.

 

[HarleyP]

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 too found it odd that in 9 hours neither Cassidy (or the Dog IIRC) didn't get into the blood.

I wasn't sure how long they say he "had" available to be at the house and IDK about the washer at their house, but I can't wash & dry a load of clothes, even with both set on the speed cycle (and remembering to take them out right away LOL) in less than an hour.

I also hadn't seen a photo where I could have identified either the jeans or the shoes either so I started looking for that information yesterday.

I was very surprised on the juror comments concerning both as well and a little bit troubled having learned theories on the jeans matching the photos have been mentioned frequently on the internet yet the prosecutor never said the jeans in evidence weren't the ones in the photo.

Sorry to say, it just ads to my doubt they have the right guy.

 

[HarleyP]

Moderators:
I'm new & don't know all the how to's yet. I understand if someone wants to move a post or two of mine. I replied to posts in the thread but they strayed from the topic a bit.

I have the hardest time finding my way around here & searching but I will get there. I hope :s

 

[nursebeeme]

welcome to websleuths HarleyP!!! You are doing just fine! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

to reply to your post, I find it possible that Jason Young drugged his dog and his child with the medicine

 

[HarleyP]

IMO the news media and talking heads do more harm then good by spreading yet more rumors, when they too, don't know any more then the rest of us. And often times they get things all wrong. Unless and until the investigation is complete, they should simply report there *is* an investigation ongoing, and not speculate as to what *they* think happened or didn't happen. All that does is malign this jury further, IMO, spread more rumors, and single out jurors when they have no idea what they are reporting is true or false. MOO I long for the days of the original Court TV, when the coverage was far more complete, commercials were taken at appropriate places in the trial/testimony, and the cases didn't turn into media events, but rather a way for we common citizens to observe the trial process. These days it's become like sporting events, people cheering on one side or the other. MOO

How many people make judgments about a person's guilt based on what they've seen on TV? I think it is terrible for a high profile TV personality to condemn someone before they've even been tried and that seems to happen on almost a daily basis anymore.

I too miss the old court TV. They seemed interested in educating the public about the legal system. The hosts weren't as quick to express their opinions and slant the coverage to that end either. And they didn't blare commercials for hideous stupid shows at inappropriate times either.

 

[HarleyP]

partial quoting here

Their comments certainly have been attacked, and deservedly so. when the judge tells you that you that "the defendant's decision not to answer questions by law enforcement officers during the criminal investigation may not be considered against him as evidence of guilt to the pending charge." and you go on TV and say that one of the main reasons you convicted him was because of "the fact that he didn't talk," then those of us who believe in a justice system are going to attack those comments.

I know that police shows and redneck folklore have put the idea in people's heads that "if you hire an attorney, then you have something to hide." People seem to forget that it's our constitutional right, and EVEN THE COPS get attorneys when they're being looked at for a crime -- they only imply that guilty people hire lawyers when they're trying to get a statement, because unless they have PC to arrest, you're walking out the door if you ask for a lawyer. It's an investigative tool, and a pawn in the game of cop -vs- suspect... but for some reason, people treat it like it's gospel, even when a judge says not to.

OK - BACK ON TRACK

I've seen allegations against two of the jurors, definitely not just the one. BUt, like most people have been stating, the SBI will be able to get the issue of texts and phone calls pretty quickly. Tracking down their physical movements and talking to the people they spoke with will take longer and be more difficult. I only have two hopes - that they actually do a THOROUGH investigation on both parts, and that they provide the public with their investigative report.

As someone who believes in our justice system, I couldn't agree more. Keep in mind that AT THIS TIME the SBI is investigating juror misconduct only as it relates to the alleged text messages. However, the defense attorneys will be appealing and IMO this is something that will be brought up in their appeal.

Yesterday I was looking for information concerning a juror comment they had compared the jeans & shoes to a photo (I want to see for myself) and I came across several comments regarding the jurors considering facts not in evidence implying that the jurors improperly compared the jeans in evidence to the photo and they weren't allowed to. IDK the legal basis for the comment, if there is one, but if that is true it will no doubt be looked at by defense for appeal as well.

Not to be repetitive but I too hope the SBI does a through investigation. I have said I didn't think the state proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but was willing to accept the verdict. I AM WILLING to accept an untainted guilty verdict so SBI, get on with it!

 

[HarleyP]

welcome to websleuths HarleyP!!! You are doing just fine! :cheer: :cheer: :cheer:

to reply to your post, I find it possible that Jason Young drugged his dog and his child with the medicine

Thank you. :blushing:

I think that is not only "possible" but it's safe to say IT HAD TO HAVE happened (Cassidy & the Dog were drugged) for the state to prove it's case.

LE said they took note of the hutch and suspected Cassidy was drugged but nothing was done about it. Why didn't they test Cassidy (& the dog) to find out? :banghead:

In addition, there wasn't any evidence JY had access to tranquilizers either. (Kids don't sleep 9 hours from Tylenol)

What REALLY bothers me is that there is no proof EITHER way!

Accordingly, the jury must consider they weren't drugged because he is innocent until proven guilty AND when there are two reasonable theories (they both are) and one points to innocence and the other to guilt, they're supposed to accept the one that points to innocence.

Two simple blood tests would have elimated the question & there's no excuse for that IMO.

 

[HarleyP]

I'm sure you all are tired of seeing my posts. I'll shut up now. For now. LOL

 

[annmarie62]

If there truly is a just and merciful God up in the heavens, HE will not delay or derail this verdict because of some stupid social media posts from the jury. With all due respect for dissenting opinions, I feel great expressing my firm- EXTREMELY firm!!- opinion that Jason Young has been rightfully convicted (finally) of the ruthless, heartless, calculating and thoroughly PLANNED first degree murder of not only his wife but also his unborn child. And no one should ever forget that Michelle was also the MOTHER OF HIS LIVING CHILD... This evil <mod snip> knowingly inflicted EXTREME emotional damage upon this innocent little girl who will have to live without a mother's priceless love for the rest of her life. Once MY was dead, JY "dumped" his own daughter as well. He signed away his parental rights so fast it made my head spin. The word "selfish" does not even begin to adequately describe the actions of this monster. This was NO crime of passion! Like Scott Peterson before him, JY schemed and plotted, manipulated and painstakingly planned this execution for a long time, and I daresay he got off on it- enjoyed it, even. Once Michelle lay dead, he couldn't resist the "thrill" of drawing MY's sister to the home on a bogus 'computer mission' to make sure Michelle didn't find out about some NONEXISTENT gift, yet another of his sadistic, tortuous manipulations. Meaning, even after MY was beaten, bloody, and cold to the touch, he seemingly JUST. COULDN'T. RESIST. sending his own sister-in-law into a hellish scene, knowing full well of the agonizing pain he would cause her... I think he was proud of himself... I'll bet he didn't spend one second- much less one <mod snip> MINUTE!- feeling bad about injecting his own child and Michelle's own sister into the hell he created in that home. I'll say it one more time> I think he enjoyed it. I hope he gets to spend the rest of his worthless life rotting away in a horrible prison... <mod snip>:furious:

 

[fran]

Although a jury is not allowed to use the fact that the defendant didn't talk to LE after the crime, based on our Constitutional Rights, if you read the judge's instructions, the jury was allowed to use the fact that the defendant didn't talk to anyone else. So the statement that the fact he didn't talk to anyone after the crime, was his family and friends, imho. So therefore, there was no jury misconduct on that issue. No base of appeal.

As for comparing the jeans entered into evidence, and the photo that included a picture of JY in his jeans, also entered into evidence,...............well, pretty explanatory. They were BOTH entered into evidence and ok'd by both pros and def and judge, so yes, imho, they were able to compare the two and again, no basis for appeal.

As for the medicine dropper on the shelf,...............it did have CY's dna and JY's dna as well. There were droplets on the shelf, indicating the child, at some time must have been given the medicine. Whether it was the night in question is open for debate. But I don't recall the jury saying that had anything to do with their guilty verdict.

As for the SBI probe, I have faith in LE and believe they will investigate the matter thoroughly. IF tampering of some sort or misconduct occurred, we'll hear about it. LE most likely already knows the answer. But if nothing is found, we most likely won't hear much. Just a blip. Of course the def may try to use this info to their advantage. But if it's investigated and found not founded, it'll be dismissed by anyone reviewing the validity of the appeal. I doubt there will be anything of substance found. At the least, someone out on the internet is going to be sorry they used their computer that day. imho.

The jury bringing up items discussed in other places, ie internet, isn't unusual. We've sat here dissecting this case for several years. The jury had the entire case layed out in front of them, item by item. Why wouldn't they see and mention some of the things discussed other places? It's there in front of them, up close. It just means they see the same discrepancies hundreds or thousands of others have as well. Doesn't mean they read it somewhere, just that they could see it too. Which means whoever out in the public who saw it, was correct and also noted by the jury.

This jury had much more evidence than the average person viewing this case from the outside. Their words in the press showed how seriously they took their jury duty. I can tell you, not from being on a jury but being dismissed from the jury box before the trial, all those instructions and rules the judge talks about to the jury, when it COULD be you making the decision of the verdict, you take his words VERY seriously and answer the judge truthfully. When asked if a certain point of law would be difficult for you to abide by in making a fair and final verdict you don't make stuff up or lie. Really even if it means you get dismissed. If what you as a human being can be used to deny another person their liberty, not just for murder but any crime and any amount of time, you want to do the right thing. People don't sit around and try and get on juries to put someone away.

I personally wouldn't want to be on a jury that puts someone away forever. nope! I've felt JY was guilty for a couple of years, but I would NEVER want to decide his fate. I already knew the facts, so I'd be immediately out anyway. But to be the one to decide must weigh very heavily on the individuals. Especially after reading some of their thoughts and such since the verdict was read. I think the only thing that's been able to make them get through this is they feel completely that they were correct in their decision. They have no doubts. But, it's still a heavy burden to bear forever.

Bless them for their courage.

JMHO
fran

 

[AlwaysShocked]

There were two bottles of medication. One was Tylenol. The other was some kind of an adult strength cold medication that a company JY worked for sold. And it did have a side effect of drowsiness.

Re: Michelle's teeth. I believe only one tooth was found later by the family members who went into the house. Police found the others right away, including finding one or two in Jason's closet.

Re: Jeans pictures. The jury could only look at photos that were submitted and approved to be in evidence. Perhaps seeing the actual photos in person rather than viewing them online as we have, made things easier to see for the jury. The juror who spoke sounded pretty satified when she said about how they looked at the pictures and determined the jeans found in his suitcase were NOT the same jeans he had on in the photo from the night before.

So Jason's "perfect crime" did not work, despite his elaborate plans.

 

[Madeleine74]

The jeans in his suitcase had external back pockets and I think some other pockets as well. The jeans or pants he wore as he checked into the HI didn't have the same external back pockets. The ones on the video stills of him leaving at midnight I couldn't tell. But when placed side by side it's pretty easy to see that the pants in his luggage are different ones than the check-in pants.

To me there are 3 obvious missing items: pullover, pants, HP shoes.

 

[Just the Fax]

The jeans in his suitcase had external back pockets and I think some other pockets as well. The jeans or pants he wore as he checked into the HI didn't have the same external back pockets. The ones on the video stills of him leaving at midnight I couldn't tell. But when placed side by side it's pretty easy to see that the pants in his luggage are different ones than the check-in pants.

To me there are 3 obvious missing items: pullover, pants, HP shoes.

 

[terminatrixator]

Thank you. :blushing:

I think that is not only "possible" but it's safe to say IT HAD TO HAVE happened (Cassidy & the Dog were drugged) for the state to prove it's case.

LE said they took note of the hutch and suspected Cassidy was drugged but nothing was done about it. Why didn't they test Cassidy (& the dog) to find out? :banghead:

In addition, there wasn't any evidence JY had access to tranquilizers either. (Kids don't sleep 9 hours from Tylenol)

What REALLY bothers me is that there is no proof EITHER way!

Accordingly, the jury must consider they weren't drugged because he is innocent until proven guilty AND when there are two reasonable theories (they both are) and one points to innocence and the other to guilt, they're supposed to accept the one that points to innocence.

Two simple blood tests would have elimated the question & there's no excuse for that IMO.

LE don't walk into a crime scene and have inventory immediately. Everything takes time. There was no obvious signs that Cassidy was drugged or Mr. G. By the time the investigators would have finished going through that home, whatever medicine that may have been in Cassidy or Mr. G's system would have been long gone. It would be expected that LE immediately take blood tests from a dog and little girl that was in the home while her mother was brutally murdered, without fully investigated.

This case wasn't a 60 minute CSI show. You are expecting a hindsight that is not doable in the real world. If either showed signs of any medication, of course they would have.

 

[Madeleine74]

And that's the very JTF exhibit I was thinking of! Thanks for posting it again. Very helpful.