Guilty of first degree murder/verdict watch #2

[MyBelle]

The biggest problem I have with the whole process is the prosecution's use of the illogical cliche that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That is not a legal argument, yet it seems to be what jurors used in their deliberations.

In fact, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. For example, if there is an absence of evidence that a murder occurred, then there is evidence that there was no murder. It is illogical to claim that there is an absence of evidence that a murder occurred, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Evidence is in fact required to draw conclusions, but the prosecution would have the jurors believe that although there is nothing to prove that something happened, it might have happened and so a guilty verdict is an option ... just because it might be true.

The biggest problem I've had with this case is that the prosecutor encouraged the jury to leap to conclusions without basis in evidence and the Judge seemed to be deluded into thinking a few instructions would rectify any bias. The jurors comments about using his silence as a presumption of guilt or surmising someone else was present along with Jason are but two examples. That area of the country has a terrible reputation for prosecutor/LE misconduct. It seems to be an accepted part of their culture.

I'm betting there will be a new motion for a re-trial shortly.

JMO

 

[jrb0124]

If not for JY, Michelle and Ryan would still be alive, even if there were many people in the room with JY, it is still murder because of JY.

I agree 100% - my arguments are regarding the jury instructions and how to fit an agreed upon concept into them.

I am convinced JY was at least involved if not the actual murderer. However, the jury instructions dictate that I must be convinced he was at the scene during the commission of the murder.

If I believe (supported by ALL of the evidence: DT & PT combined) that he hired someone, promised someone a share of the $4m, and cowarded (is that a word?) out of doing the act himself, but showed up later to inspect the scene - if I believe that then according to the jury instructions I would have to vote NG.

 

[MyBelle]

However, someone else taking care of CY after the fact does not mean the jurors must consider that person as acting in concert.

The Jury could conclude that JY committed the murder then called for clean-up help. That is reasonable, and not acting in concert.

I still feel uneasy about the fact that if you postulate 2 or more people were at the crime scene before MF got to the house, how can you determine based on the evidence which one or if both/several were actually present during the murder? or who removed and cleaned up CY (if that happened). Could be that JY showed up just to handle CY.

The jurors were carefully instructed. In concert means they were in agreement to commit the murder and that all parties must have been present at the time of the murders.

 

[Madeleine74]

Everything entered into the case is "evidence." The public may not agree on what constitutes evidence but everything that is said to a jury from witnesses, all the exhibits they are shown, including the video of the defendant's own words from his first trial is evidence. In this case there are hundreds of pieces of evidence.

The jury can use their common sense and look at the totality of what they have been given and see where things fit and where things don't fit.

It's obvious a crime scene that takes place IN a perp's home will give the perp the forensic advantage. Of course his (or her) DNA, fingerprints, and footprints will be in his/her house. Footprints in the victim's blood, and from a make/model/size of shoe consistent to a pair the perp is known to have purchased and claims to have donated, however, aligns directly to the time frame of the crime itself.

A jury is well within their right to look at a crime scene, blood evidence, look at what was found, look at what is missing (shirt/pants/shoes seen on video the night before), etc. Just like a hand or finger print on a wall with blood spatter not on that very print, causing a void of sorts, so too can the jury find other telling voids that they consider.

Connecting the dots, using inference, using common sense...it's all a part of examining a circumstantial case and making judgment calls on what it means.

And it's all fair game for a jury.

 

[jrb0124]

The biggest problem I've had with this case is that the prosecutor encouraged the jury to leap to conclusions without basis in evidence and the Judge seemed to be deluded into thinking a few instructions would rectify any bias. The jurors comments about using his silence as a presumption of guilt or surmising someone else was present along with Jason are but two examples. That area of the country has a terrible reputation for prosecutor/LE misconduct. It seems to be an accepted part of their culture.

I'm betting there will be a new motion for a re-trial shortly.

JMO

The way the appeal process works is that a panel of 3 judges will review the complaint and consider the legal errors suggested. IF 2 of those judges concur that legal error contributed to the adverse verdict, they can direct remedy. One form of this is granting a new trial. To be honest though, I highly doubt this will happen.

 

[jrb0124]

There most certainly was evidence of murder. The problem was that there wasn't evidence at the scene that Jason committed the murder.

But I think that is the charge of the jury: to determine the meaning and significance of each piece of evidence. While some may not consider "30 blows" as evidence JY committed the murder, others may.

Take a print for instance. Suppose JY's hand print was on the wall and was surrounded by blood but there was no blood directly on any part of the print. The DT and PT will argue and enlist expert witnesses to highlight their conclusions of that "evidence", and one argument may be more persuasive than another, but in the end the jury will decide its its meaning and significance.

 

[jrb0124]

The jurors were carefully instructed. In concert means they were in agreement to commit the murder and that all parties must have been present at the time of the murders.

which is why I said: The Jury could conclude that JY committed the murder then called for clean-up help. That is reasonable, and not acting in concert.

The Jury can agree that JY most likely had help without stipulating that that person(s) was acting "in concert".

 

[dja230]

If I am ever in a high profile jury, I would never talk about it, the reason, people attach certain words to mean what they want, many words were spoke in that jury room, this jury looked at the facts and came to a verdict of guilty, they were there every day, they could see and feel the evidence and know the (lack of evidence), I think they worked very hard for justice in this case. I don't believe NC is the only state with problems and I do not believe the justice system is perfect but thank goodness we are not in another country!

 

[gracielee]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle
BBM. Hey, Otto, evidently some jurors thought it okay to just guess and be done with it. I think future jurors should be required to take an intelligence test.

-----

I thought we were asked to refrain from making derrogatory remarks and assumptions about the jury? MOO, glee



*******

The biggest problem I have with the whole process is the prosecution's use of the illogical cliche that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". That is not a legal argument, yet it seems to be what jurors used in their deliberations.

.

Reminds me a bit of 'if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit'. The attorney's arguments are NOT evidence. MOO

 

[MyBelle]

which is why I said: The Jury could conclude that JY committed the murder then called for clean-up help. That is reasonable, and not acting in concert.

The Jury can agree that JY most likely had help without stipulating that that person(s) was acting "in concert".

The jury wasn't supposed to guess or speculate, <modsnip> There was no evidence presented that Jason called for help. The prosecution didn't present that as a theory. Nobody else has been charged and the case is closed. A jury is supposed to weigh actual evidence, not guesses.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

Quote:
Originally Posted by MyBelle
BBM. Hey, Otto, evidently some jurors thought it okay to just guess and be done with it. I think future jurors should be required to take an intelligence test.

-----

I thought we were asked to refrain from making derrogatory remarks and assumptions about the jury? MOO, glee



*******



Reminds me a bit of 'if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit'. The attorney's arguments are NOT evidence. MOO

I offered my opinion on a statement made to the media by a juror who admitted they "surmised" facts. Link has been provided upthread.

JMO

 

[MyBelle]

If I am ever in a high profile jury, I would never talk about it, the reason, people attach certain words to mean what they want, many words were spoke in that jury room, this jury looked at the facts and came to a verdict of guilty, they were there every day, they could see and feel the evidence and know the (lack of evidence), I think they worked very hard for justice in this case. I don't believe NC is the only state with problems and I do not believe the justice system is perfect but thank goodness we are not in another country!

Nobody forced these jurors to speak to the media. Once they do, the public certainly does have the right to form an opinion. If they say something questionable, it could certainly be used by the defense to gain a new trial. That's just the way our system works, like it or not.

JMO

 

[jrb0124]

The jury wasn't supposed to guess or speculate, which is what you are doing. There was no evidence presented that Jason called for help. The prosecution didn't present that as a theory. Nobody else has been charged and the case is closed. A jury is supposed to weigh actual evidence, not guesses.

JMO

Technically, the jury is only supposed to return a verdict on the count(s).

They are not obligated to fill in all of the blanks. If they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that _____________, then they vote G. Otherwise they vote NG or hang.

A jury is entitled to make their own decisions about the evidence & testimony presented, and how much significance to place on each piece. They certainly can guess about unresolved pieces of the story which have no bearing on the verdict returned.

There is some crossover though. As I mentioned above, if they do subscribe to "in concert" as stated in the jury instructions (vs had help in general), I am curious as to how they could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that JY was also present during the commission of the murder (and not after).

 

[dja230]

I don't know how but these killings have to stop, a lot of the killers try to get rid of the body and hopefully they will never be found, 1- to prove they were murdered, 2- will not be found for awhile to prove how they were murdered. It is not likely that a stranger would go to a lot of trouble to abduct from house or car? A sociopath or psychopath does not have the ability to reason, I guess.

 

[dja230]

I would think a 2 minute interview with a juror is not the sum of all that was addressed in the deliberation room.

 

[CBTampa]

I have been reading different opinions about what the evidence showed and what the procesution did or did not proved. He and his attorneys had over 5 years to point out this evidence to investigators. They didn't bring out anything that would prove anyone else did it. I know the argument that JY doesn't have to prove it, but folks, as a human being, husband and father wouldn't you want to know who murdered your wife and son? I saw nothing in this trial that pointed to anyone else. If there is such evidence JY will get a new trial. In the meantime, I am not going to second guess this jury. IMO

 

[gracielee]

MOO, I think it is counter-productive to continue to speculate as to what this particular jury did in their deliberations when that specuation is the result of picking and choosing bit's, taken out of context, from various jurors remarks and replies to questions by the media. Unless and until this jury is found to be at fault for a specific infraction, these jurors are to be afforded the respect of their decision. IMO.

 

[MyBelle]

Technically, the jury is only supposed to return a verdict on the count(s).

They are not obligated to fill in all of the blanks. If they are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that _____________, then they vote G. Otherwise they vote NG or hang.

A jury is entitled to make their own decisions about the evidence & testimony presented, and how much significance to place on each piece. They certainly can guess about unresolved pieces of the story which have no bearing on the verdict returned.

There is some crossover though. As I mentioned above, if they do subscribe to "in concert" as stated in the jury instructions (vs had help in general), I am curious as to how they could be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that JY was also present during the commission of the murder (and not after).

We'll have to agree to disagree. A jury is not supposed to "surmise" anything. To conclude that he had help because it is the only way to explain the "clean" child is quite a leap. Who was this helper? Why aren't the police seeking this helper?

I think the defense will gain a new trial out of it.

JMO

 

[gracielee]

I have been reading different opinions about what the evidence showed and what the procesution did or did not proved. He and his attorneys had over 5 years to point out this evidence to investigators. They didn't bring out anything that would prove anyone else did it. I know the argument that JY doesn't have to prove it, but folks, as a human being, husband and father wouldn't you want to know who murdered your wife and son? I saw nothing in this trial that pointed to anyone else. If there is such evidence JY will get a new trial. In the meantime, I am not going to second guess this jury. IMO

He had five years to come up with the shirt, shoes & jeans he was last seen wearing. Perhaps, had he at the very least, listened to what the officers had to say that first night, and assisted in the investigation to the point of doing a walk through in his own residence, with his attorney present, to look for missing or moved items........

 

[MyBelle]

I have been reading different opinions about what the evidence showed and what the procesution did or did not proved. He and his attorneys had over 5 years to point out this evidence to investigators. They didn't bring out anything that would prove anyone else did it. I know the argument that JY doesn't have to prove it, but folks, as a human being, husband and father wouldn't you want to know who murdered your wife and son? I saw nothing in this trial that pointed to anyone else. If there is such evidence JY will get a new trial. In the meantime, I am not going to second guess this jury. IMO

His lawyers chose a strategy that put the burden of proof totally on the prosecution. They didn't anticipate that the jury would "surmise" on their own. I think he'll get a new trial and a different strategy will be used.

JMO