Upcoming Trial - 2012

[gracielee]

H Gracie, I don't know.
I am 5'6 and everyone is still taller than me.
:floorlaugh:

I used to be 5'5", but I'm getting old, so who know's, I am probably shorter than that now. We have a male friend who is slight of build, and I always assumed him to be much shorter than he actually was. It wasn't until I saw him standing right next to my husband, who is 6 ft. tall, that I realized they were exactly the same height. I'd always thought the other man was 'just a bit taller than myself.' Certainly nowhere near six ft. I realized I was right, I'm a horrible judge of height.

 

[Cammy]

I used to be 5'5", but I'm getting old, so who know's, I am probably shorter than that now. We have a male friend who is slight of build, and I always assumed him to be much shorter than he actually was. It wasn't until I saw him standing right next to my husband, who is 6 ft. tall, that I realized they were exactly the same height. I'd always thought the other man was 'just a bit taller than myself.' Certainly nowhere near six ft. I realized I was right, I'm a horrible judge of height.

Lol, cute.

 

[Cammy]

Going back to reading some search warrants and finding so many things wrong.....
So many inconsistencies that could come out at trial, jurors do not like to be fooled
when witnesses take the stand and testify differently.
This could be a problem, but I am sure the state is ready !!
IMO

 

[gracielee]

Of course people's memories fade. If it is written repeatedly that a white car was seen at the house at 4 in the morning, some people re-write their memories and believe it was a white car. The fact is that it wasn't. It was a light colored car - which could mean many things. Some people may forget that there was a search warrant specifically for measuring the bathroom tiles because investigators made mistakes and neglected to put measurement markers in their photos. These things happen.

The witness was asked in court about the height of the man she dealt with at the gas station. I understand that this fact presents a problem in terms of arguing that her testimony is valid, but that's how it is.

"Though Dahms, a woman with a history of drug abuse, pointed to Young in court today as the man she had encountered in November 2006, she told Judge Stephens [minutes] before that she had difficulty describing the man she had seen in the store.

Dahms, 5-feet-3, said she remembered the customer as a white man, slightly taller than she is, who looked to be in his 30s.

But when asked whether she saw him in the courtroom today, she pointed at Jason Young without hesitation.

She said she remembered him because few people cussed her out as he did."

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/2011/05...ows-store-clerks-testimony.html#storylink=cpy


She was most likely only able to identify Jason because she was only shown his picture (not a photo lineup) and because he was sitting at the defendant's table. Given her drug history, one has to question whether she was somewhat motivated to do something good and help police.

I'm sorry, but this seems like a gratuituous attempt at smearing a witness who is only attempting to tell her story. She didn't seek out attention or go to the cops. She is merely doing her duty as a citizen and witness to what she saw and heard that night.

 

[Cammy]

I'm sorry, but this seems like a gratuituous attempt at smearing a witness who is only attempting to tell her story. She didn't seek out attention or go to the cops. She is merely doing her duty as a citizen and witness to what she saw and heard that night.

It was in the morning, around 5:30 am....

 

[gracielee]

I certainly hope these threads aren't going to continue to degenerate into sniping once again. It's my understanding that both victims and witnesses are supposed to be treated respectfully on this site. IIRC, wasn't this thread started by a moderator?

 

[borndem]

I don't really see any way to rehabilitate testimony stating that the man she dealt with at the gas station was 5 feet tall. If she suddenly changes that fact,she's got a problem ... furthermore, prosecutors can't counsel her to change that testimony. I think the prosecution is stuck with witness testimony that a 5 foot guy was buying gas.

I could be wrong, otto, but it seems to me that Holt could have reminded her of the conversation she had had with the investigators four years prior when her memory had been quite fresh and helped he remember what she told them. Then holt could have simply asked, before the DT might have, which is your better recollection, Gracie? And that would have made her feel better and more sure, and it would have been far less confusing to the jury.

But it wasn't....

JMO.

 

[Cammy]

I could be wrong, otto, but it seems to me that Holt could have reminded her of the conversation she had had with the investigators four years prior when her memory had been quite fresh and helped he remember what she told them. Then holt could have simply asked, before the DT might have, which is your better recollection, Gracie? And that would have made her feel better and more sure, and it would have been far less confusing to the jury.

But it wasn't....

JMO.

I think all that really matters is what is going to happen this time around.
I feel for Gracie and /or any witness that was unwillingly dragged into this case.
Justice for Michelle, finally just may be within reach.
IMO
:seeya:
Thanks for all the nice welcomes !!

 

[tarheel8600]

Cammy,

I was speaking of Jason Young's testimony in the first trial.

He pretty much admitted he was a bad husband, admitted to the affairs/trysts and most everything that Holt threw at him. His story differed rock vrs. twig....and he smoked a cigar. What else did the prosecution find out?

I'm just catching up with the posts so I apologize if someone has already answered this.

One thing the PT found out through JY's testimony is that JY was out of his room around 11:20 pm (supposedly to get his computer charger) at the same time the security camera was unplugged. There was no way to prove he was out of his room at that time until JY testified to it.

Another thing the PT learned is that JY picked up the newspaper at the front desk to check sports scores that were 24 hours old. He could have said that there was an article in there that he wanted to read; that would have been a little more believable.

He also said that he wasn't a good husband to Michelle (that has to be the understatement of the century), but that he was working on his marriage. That was a bald-faced lie. Why BH didn't ask him to list the ways he was working on his marriage is beyond me.

They also found out that his explanation for his party antics and his uncaring attitude towards Michelle was because he was immature. He still doesn't see his behavior as sick and mean. Being immature is a far cry from being sick and mean.

One last thing they (and the rest of us watching) found out when he testified was that he is one thirsty *advertiser censored*. :needdrink:

 

[tarheel8600]

I see two possibilities: that there simply was nothing specific that investigators wanted to know, or she didn't have enough information to ask the right questions. Either way, the argument that Jason was unwilling to answer questions certainly can't be used again. It seems he was more than willing to answer any questions investigators had as long as it was in a courtroom.

JY was only willing to answer questions AFTER he knew what the prosecution had against him.
He was only willing to answer questions AFTER he was able to tailor his answers to the evidence.
That in no way makes JY a hero for stepping up to the plate and opening himself up to scrutiny.

If he had talked to LE after repeated requests during the hours, days, weeks, or months after his wife's murder, I might feel differently.
If he had done this during the WDS, I might feel differently.
If he had done this instead of voluntarily giving up his daughter, I might feel differently.
But he didn't, so I don't.

 

[Grammy Jean]

I'm just catching up with the posts so I apologize if someone has already answered this.

One thing the PT found out through JY's testimony is that JY was out of his room around 11:20 pm (supposedly to get his computer charger) at the same time the security camera was unplugged. There was no way to prove he was out of his room at that time until JY testified to it.

Another thing the PT learned is that JY picked up the newspaper at the front desk to check sports scores that were 24 hours old. He could have said that there was an article in there that he wanted to read; that would have been a little more believable.

He also said that he wasn't a good husband to Michelle (that has to be the understatement of the century), but that he was working on his marriage. That was a bald-faced lie. Why BH didn't ask him to list the ways he was working on his marriage is beyond me.

They also found out that his explanation for his party antics and his uncaring attitude towards Michelle was because he was immature. He still doesn't see his behavior as sick and mean. Being immature is a far cry from being sick and mean.

One last thing they (and the rest of us watching) found out when he testified was that he is one thirsty *advertiser censored*. :needdrink:

Like many of you, I too feel BH could have done so much better, and I hope she can this time around. I did feel the one time she was strong was in the part of her cross examining JY when she prefaced many questions with "Were you working on your marriage when" she had a whole series of these and that I thought was effective.

 

[tarheel8600]

Agree, that was one of the things that most concerned me and possibly the Jurors, past and recently seated.
And, one of the things that have made me reconsider if Mr. Young did this.
And, as for blue jeans, unless there were a lot of business men in suits pumping gas that morning at the station, that is what most men wear.
I don't see that as an out of the ordinary detail.
Agree again, that the state is stuck , but what can they do now, unless they decide not to call her?
IMO

BBM and UBM

Are you presuming to know what the recently seated jurors are already concerned about? How would you know what is concerning them? The actual trial where evidence is introduced hasn't even started yet. :waitasec:

 

[borndem]

Same courtroom, 3-B.

Yeah, Fax, the "Camera Courtroom"! The small, cold one.... I'll probably see you there, one day or another....

 

[Allusonz]

The cost of a lawyer for custody or courtroom appearance may start at $5000, but that is not what it costs in the long run.

I'm curious ... why do you think that parents should pay the bills for their 30+ year old children and where does it stop? Should they cover all legal bills, only some, should they put a cap on it even though they know once they start, the costs will only continue? Should parents give children money for cars, houses, household bills ... where does it start and end?

BBM

You are very correct Otto. Most lawyers in these situations ask for a retainer up front usually in the hundreds of thousand dollars.

One case that currently comes to mind is the Horman case.

A $40,000 dollar 401k would not even cover the Examination for Discovery and disbursements

 

[borndem]

JY was only willing to answer questions AFTER he knew what the prosecution had against him.
He was only willing to answer questions AFTER he was able to tailor his answers to the evidence.
That in no way makes JY a hero for stepping up to the plate and opening himself up to scrutiny.

If he had talked to LE after repeated requests during the hours, days, weeks, or months after his wife's murder, I might feel differently.
If he had done this during the WDS, I might feel differently.
If he had done this instead of voluntarily giving up his daughter, I might feel differently.
But he didn't, so I don't.

Very eloquent, very succinct and very true, tarheel. I heartily and completely agree with all of it. Your posting is really about all that needs to be said. Thank you! ..

 

[Madeleine74]

Investigators can't question witnesses sitting in the jury box. It's up to the the ADAs to elicit testimony during cross, based on what was brought up during direct. They can't just conduct an investigation up there and ask anything they want regardless.

While BH's questions "Were you working on your marriage when you..." were good and pounded home well, the reality is that nowadays people don't care about affairs and bad boorish jerkwad behavior. They don't see a correlation between someone who acts that way and a murdered spouse. And while it's not "proof," there is inference that can be drawn about the character of the person, but some people don't understand one thing may connect to another and they don't understand if someone is lying about what they stated as their intentions in their marriage, the lying calls everything else they say into question as well.

And some people want (nee...require) a CSI-level forensic match of all evidence in a case before they'll even concede a person may have been involved. What they really want is an HD video of the murder being committed, the perp then looking right into the lens of the camera, while twirling a handlebar mustache, along with all the other CSI-level forensic evidence that should magically come back in 42 min, delivered by Marg Helgenberger.

Any other evidence, including circumstantial evidence is not "real" evidence to them.

 

[otto]

I'm sorry, but this seems like a gratuituous attempt at smearing a witness who is only attempting to tell her story. She didn't seek out attention or go to the cops. She is merely doing her duty as a citizen and witness to what she saw and heard that night.

I suppose you could contact the newspaper and let them know what you think about the information they included about the witness.

 

[Allusonz]

She can be reminded of what she told Spivey when it was fresh on her mind.
The jury can decide if her recent memory is more credible than a mistake she made 4 years later

She as well gave a different description during a hearing.

This will present problems for the prosecution as it is considered to be testimony under oath.

What surprised me is that in all the times she met with detectives she was asked if they ever asked her for a description of the individual and she repeatedly answered no.

She was not shown a photo line-up.

When asked to describe the individual during the hearing she gave a totally different description. I am certain that she means well but issues arise when you have testimony that is vastly different.

 

[otto]

I certainly hope these threads aren't going to continue to degenerate into sniping once again. It's my understanding that both victims and witnesses are supposed to be treated respectfully on this site. IIRC, wasn't this thread started by a moderator?

There's very little we can do about what has been published about a witness in the news and a history of drug abuse is a factor in court testimony.

Here's another link with the same info: http://admin.ongo.com/v/983202/-1/8811585723B4D149/clerks-id-allowed-in-young-trial

 

[Allusonz]

The more you post your opinion on this, the weaker your argument gets.
MOO

I am uncertain how this becomes weaker since it is based on testimony that was presented in a Court of Law as evidence.