State vs Jason Young 2-17-2012

[Cortne]

Me too, Cortne. Extremely vivid memories. And also experience as to the conflicted *feelings/emotions* children have towards the actions, however violent, of their parents. Children are extremely confused by their sense of *security* in regards to violence they witness or experience themselves. On one hand there is the violence the see or experience, on the other hand, these are the only people they know who feed and shelter them.

Yes yes and YES!! Hugs to you!!

 

[fran]

So, if they can put a size 11 upper shoe, onto and physical size out-sole of say a 12.

In reverse, PERHAPS the size 10 out-sole left, is larger, say 11 1/2 or 12?

hmmmmm,
fran

 

[Just the Fax]

On Meredith's redirect, it was brought up. She testifed that CY 'made reference to her father' when she asked CY 'what happened to mommy, did you see?'

Yea, but that was when she was outside the house later...correct?
I had the impression the "daddy did it" did not register with her.

 

[Wolfpack]

She said the mama doll had a boo-boo and was being spanked," Cummings said. "Cassidy did not try to identify the other doll."

On another occasion, the girl woke up from a nap and told her teacher, without being prompted: "Mommy had boo-boos all over. Mommy was on the bed with red stuff all over her, that she fell on the floor," Cummings said.

He said that she also talked about there being animals in a barn and her "daddy brought them fruit snacks."


http://www.wral.com/specialreports/michelleyoung/story/10745815/

This is terribly sad. And sounds as if CY was having nightmares about it.

Having not watched the testimony, the way it sounds, the fruit snack story may not be describing the night of the murder? Or was this also 2 days later?

 

[Madeleine74]

by JTF: Yea, but that was when she was outside the house later...correct?
I had the impression the "daddy did it" did not register with her.

Correct. During the utterance by CY while MF was on the phone with 911, she did not appear to hear or pay close attention to all that CY was saying at that time.

 

[octobermoon]

So, if they can put a size 11 upper shoe, onto and physical size out-sole of say a 12.

In reverse, PERHAPS the size 10 out-sole left, is larger, say 11 1/2 or 12?

hmmmmm,
fran

That is what I was thinking when he asked that. :waitasec:

 

[gritguy]

This is terribly sad. And sounds as if CY was having nightmares about it.

Having not watched the testimony, the way it sounds, the fruit snack story may not be describing the night of the murder? Or was this also 2 days later?

It sounds like the fruit snack story was made at a different time (not sure if it relates to night of murder or not). From what I'm seeing, I'd be somewhat surprised if it comes in.

 

[mck16]

Correct. During the utterance by CY while MF was on the phone with 911, she did not appear to hear or pay close attention to all that CY was saying at that time.

Who has CY been living with? And do you think she remembers this now? tia

 

[gracielee]

Yes yes and YES!! Hugs to you!!

Big hugs to you too, Cortne. Hang in there. :therethere::heart:

 

[Just the Fax]

They need to show the jury how rare any of the 3 hush puppy models are in the Raleigh area.
The only major stores that carry men's HP are 2 warehouse shoe stores...SRI and DSW.

 

[cityslick]

The WRAL twitter feed states that the judge only rules that jury can hear statements on CY's actions, not statements.

 

[octobermoon]

The WRAL twitter feed states that the judge only rules that jury can hear statements on CY's actions, not statements.

He said he will have a hearing (without the jury present) to preview the testimony re: the statements of CY. He didn't say when that hearing will be, or at least I didn't hear him say.

 

[gracielee]

Yea, but that was when she was outside the house later...correct?
I had the impression the "daddy did it" did not register with her.

IIRC, Meredith's reference was to what CY said 'in the house' 'when she first asked her 'did you see what happened to mommy'. Meredith wasn't allowed to testify to it on her direct, but because of certain 'cross exam' questions, Becky was allowed to bring it up on her redirect.

That is the way I understood the sequence of events of testimony. If I'm wrong, perhaps someone care correct me?

 

[fran]

Who has CY been living with? And do you think she remembers this now? tia

This was her previous daycare. Right after this occurred she was whisked away to Brevard.

According to what I understand, they can't allow hear-say, except if the person who spoke it, is no longer available, such as a murder victim. Because the defense is given the right to cross exam their accuser.

I think because of her age, the judge, (not sure, jmho), is determining CY under that sort of rule, because of her age at the time of the murder. But he's allowing it under the 'excited utterence' sort of rule, because it was given within a week of the crime. He said something about consideration had to be given as to how long had elapsed, and he felt this fits under that type of rule.

JMHO, and I could be wrong! grityguy is the legal mind!
fran

 

[fran]

The WRAL twitter feed states that the judge only rules that jury can hear statements on CY's actions, not statements.

IIRCC, the judge said something about her not saying the identity of the perp, but something about the reason 'why the perp left an eye witness.' I think he meant it was up to the jury to determine THEIR opinion on why whoever did this, would leave the child because she MAY have been a witness.

I believe this again goes under the 'circumstantial evidence' rules.

Is that right, gritguy?
fran

 

[Grammy Jean]

It sounds like the fruit snack story was made at a different time (not sure if it relates to night of murder or not). From what I'm seeing, I'd be somewhat surprised if it comes in.

Since it appears this was said right after CY was talking about Mommy having boo-boos and red stuff all over, to me she then was remembering JY giving her the medicine (fruit snacks) then telling her a story about barn animals as she got drowsy and fell asleep, just my speculations. I also do not think it will come in.

 

[Just the Fax]

Mallet Probably Not Connected to Young Murder Probe

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/1373778/

 

[Grammy Jean]

IIRC, Meredith's reference was to what CY said 'in the house' 'when she first asked her 'did you see what happened to mommy'. Meredith wasn't allowed to testify to it on her direct, but because of certain 'cross exam' questions, Becky was allowed to bring it up on her redirect.

That is the way I understood the sequence of events of testimony. If I'm wrong, perhaps someone care correct me?

Yes, that is what I remember MF testifying to during redirect. She said something like when they were in the house CY had refrenced her father being in the house and then later outside went on to just say"he"

 

[Wolfpack]

This was her previous daycare. Right after this occurred she was whisked away to Brevard.

According to what I understand, they can't allow hear-say, except if the person who spoke it, is no longer available, such as a murder victim. Because the defense is given the right to cross exam their accuser.

I think because of her age, the judge, (not sure, jmho), is determining CY under that sort of rule, because of her age at the time of the murder. But he's allowing it under the 'excited utterence' sort of rule, because it was given within a week of the crime. He said something about consideration had to be given as to how long had elapsed, and he felt this fits under that type of rule.

JMHO, and I could be wrong! grityguy is the legal mind!
fran

The time thing comes into play because of the nature of what is truly an "excited utterance". The most common example is someone running a red light, and a bystander saying "Holy Cow, did you see him run that read light?" The more contemporaneous, and spontaneous the outburst is, the more likely it will fall into this category. You can move away from the activity in question if you have not had time to process the events, or you are still under their influence, in laymans terms, if you're still shaken up by them, it can still be an excited utterance.

And excited utterance also must be voluntarily given, and not prompted. So, if the teacher had asked CY if she saw anything, and she had answered, that would not fall under the excited utterance rule.

There are many exceptions to the hearsay doctrine. It is separate and apart from the Confrontation Clause, and that will be another hurdle to get past if they want to admit her statements.

 

[octobermoon]

Next witness will be 30mins. Then Jury released. Then I hope....the hearing....IMO