State vs. Jason Lynn Young 03-01-12 (P.M. session: PT closing arguments)

[oceanblueeyes]

If he's convicted, and it's 1st (which it should be 1st if he's convicted of anything), then there's no sentencing, it's just life.

If it's 2nd, he gets a minimum of 7 years, average of 20, but the Judge doesn't always accept character witnesses in making that determination. I only really see character witnesses for sentencing purposes if it's a death case, and that's because the jury still decides that portion as well.

That is true but the Judge will set a date for sentencing and character witnesses can testify at that time although the sentence of life is a given.

I have seen victim impact statements in LWOP cases and both families are allowed to speak. But I have always felt it doesnt sway the Judge's sentencing one way or the other.

IMO

 

[Wolfpack]

That is true but the Judge will set a date for sentencing and character witnesses can testify at that time although the sentence of life is a given.

I have seen victim impact statements in LWOP cases and both families are allowed to speak. But I have always felt it doesnt sway the Judge's sentencing one way or the other.

IMO

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. In NC, there is only LWOP for 1st degree murder. There is no other option the Judge can have before him. I've never seen a sentencing for 1st Degree non-capital that was anything other than the declaration of LWOP immediately after the verdict is read.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I believe they thought it was something akin to a bat?

Really? Did the ME say that in his testimony?

I never heard the PT mention a weapon.

IMO

 

[AlwaysShocked]

I'm pretty sure the ME testified that a weapon was likely used - mentioned crescent-shaped bruises and lacerations.

Seeing the lacerations on MY's shaved head in that photograph, I would think even a layman would recognize those were not caused by just a fist.

I am guessing the Prosecutors didn't want to get too strongly into talking about the weapon because they never recovered it.

 

[ohiogirl]

No more out of left field than the victim's sister being the murderer.
Would you agree?

no, but just because it has been thrown out there doesn't mean to me it needs to be considered. jmom:seeya:

 

[ohstopit]

If you're in the courtroom, either side can call you, you don't have to be subpoenaed.

And I think the prosecution would have loved to grill her on her posts/emails to/about Jason.

bbm - is that why those emails were never introduced? were they introduced in the first trial? seems to me, knowing nothing about the rules for evidence, that an email should stand alone as evidence without having to be introduced through a witness (if i understand this correctly.)

 

[ohiogirl]

But anyone would fight for their lives if they are being strangled and we hear about women being strangled to death quite often.

In fact I have always believed that is how Scott Peterson murdered Laci.

IMO

And,y ou felt the evidence was bard?

 

[Just the Fax]

I have no idea if it passed! I haven't kept up with crim law changes in a while.

ETA the history: http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/billlookup/billlookup.pl?Session=2011&BillID=S105

It only made it back to committee .....too bad.

 

[Wolfpack]

bbm - is that why those emails were never introduced? were they introduced in the first trial? seems to me, knowing nothing about the rules for evidence, that an email should stand alone as evidence without having to be introduced through a witness (if i understand this correctly.)

If the emails were on Jason Young's computer, and testified to being there by the computer expert, then they can come in without the witness. However, her posts on on other sites, and things NOT on his computer can't come in, except through impeachment of her. Unless you had someone testify to how they traced it back through her IP address, etc.

I don't know why they were not introduced.

 

[ohiogirl]

I do know one thing for sure... I'm not going to get any work done tomorrow if I'm refreshing wral and websleuths every 2 minutes for a verdict.

And somehow, I think it'll come when I'm in a deposition tomorrow afternoon

Nah, too fast,imo.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

And,y ou felt the evidence was bard?

I honestly can't say. I didn't get to see all of the trial from gavel to gavel.

I have gotten to see about the last week and a half of the case.

Of course I did see the CAs but they arent evidence.

IMO

 

[Bottle Cap]

Listened to BH but couldn't listen to HC until just now. He did a bang up job, and his righteous disgust was a thing of beauty.

The photograph was disturbing. You know who beats someone's head in like that? Someone with no impulse control whatsoever. It was senseless and it was dangerous, in terms of getting away with a murder, but he simply could not control himself - which seemed to be pretty much the essence of JY. Whether it was his d*ck or his mouth or his runaway feelings for GC put into an email, he just simply could not contain himself. Lots of id, little ego.

That id caused a bloody mess and a delay in the plan and it threw a lot of stuff onto the CE heap that is towering over him that, with any sense in the world, will fall soon on his head.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I do know one thing for sure... I'm not going to get any work done tomorrow if I'm refreshing wral and websleuths every 2 minutes for a verdict.

And somehow, I think it'll come when I'm in a deposition tomorrow afternoon

Nah, too fast,imo.

I think they may have a verdict by Monday evening but the jury wont even get the case until the Judge reads the jury instructions and by then I dont think they will have long enough to deliberate.

Although its not unheard of for a jury to return a verdict quickly.

Nancy Grace said she had a jury come back with a guilty verdict in 15 minutes on one of her murder cases.

 

[ohiogirl]

If you're in the courtroom, either side can call you, you don't have to be subpoenaed.

And I think the prosecution would have loved to grill her on her posts/emails to/about Jason.

Wow I had no idea that just being in the court room would leave you open to being called. Great infor, ty!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Wow I had no idea that just being in the court room would leave you open to being called. Great infor, ty!

I didnt know that either.

imo

 

[gritguy]

Eye witness testimony can be circumstantial or direct, depending on the context.

The law places no greater weight on circumstantial or direct evidence. Any evidence must be weighed according to its merit. Direct evidence can be improperly construed just as easily as circumstantial evidence

I would think, but I haven't checked, that the most dangerous type of mistaken eyewitness testimony would be that that is direct evidence of a crime, since it goes straight to the heart of the matter.

Example for direct, "I saw defendant shoot the victim."

Example of circumstantial, "I saw defendant outside the home minutes after I heard a shot."

 

[ohiogirl]

Well unfortunately I do know a husband can get bruised knuckles if they beat their wife. It happened to me by my ex-husband who put me in the hospital for three weeks with a concussion and a blood clot on the brain.

When he was arrested he still had bruising on his hands........thank goodness.

I apologize.

 

[Madeleine74]

I understand that. My point is that none of his friends said anything positive about him. One said he was a manipulator and the other said he was a horndog. I think that goes towards character.

LOL. Those WERE the compliments! I think that's as positive as it gets here. Oh and he was referred to as an "imp." I suppose that could elicit some awwwws too.

I do find it telling that many, if not most, of his friends believe him to be guilty. I mean, these are the folks who know him personally and gave him the benefit of every doubt. And as they watched and experienced his unusual behavior after the murder and compared it to a range of more normal behaviors I'm sure it slowly dawned on them what was happening.

And as the facts of the case emerged over these last few years, it didn't look good, normal, or innocent.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Eye witness testimony can be circumstantial or direct, depending on the context.

The law places no greater weight on circumstantial or direct evidence. Any evidence must be weighed according to its merit. Direct evidence can be improperly construed just as easily as circumstantial evidence

I would think, but I haven't checked, that the most dangerous type of mistaken eyewitness testimony would be that that is direct evidence of a crime, since it goes straight to the heart of the matter.

Example for direct, "I saw defendant shoot the victim."

Example of circumstantial, "I saw defendant outside the home minutes after I heard a shot."

Exactly! Well stated!

imo

 

[traveler]

I don't go by my feelings when I evaluate a case. I go by the evidence shown, and look at each item and each element.

Because I know that not everything in a case with a lot of C.E. is just a coincidence, though only a few items surely could be, I see how it looks in totality. I look for things that corroborate, like the receipt and ID of vehicle in Gracie's witness statement, to determine what seems reasonable and is verifiable. I keep in mind a big picture view, while looking at the details.

I assume neither guilt or innocence and just look at evidence as it comes out. I do consider behavior as part of the circumstances and that is added to the mix.

There is so much in the JY case that it really is a mountain. It's almost overwhelming the number of coincidences that befell one person within a mere 12 hours. His own behaviors did not help his cause. There aren't enough yoga poses to make the stretch that every single thing is just a coinky dink. It's never just one thing in these cases, it truly is the totality that provides the necessary picture. While I'm not about to list them, I suspect there are well over 100 or 150 line items that could easily be on a list. At some point there's a "c'mon no one is THAT unlucky or lucky."

Madeleine74 - I'm praying your clone is the jury fore(wo)man!!!